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. Rumraket,

    Apologies to Walto, I forgot to hit reply:

    The funny thing about some of these creationists like J-mac and Robert Beyers is they’re so incoherent I some times suspect it’s an “evolutionist” trying to make creationism look as bad as they can.

    I definitely thought that of Byers.

  2. walto:
    OK. I give up. Just, as usual, a waste of time and failure to communicate, here due largely to repetitive self-contradictory remarks by the moderators.

    I value your contributions at TSZ, walto. I just happen to disagree on the idea of limiting everyone to post per month as an absolute rule. I’ve no problem with a voluntary limit and I don’t see why peer pressure won’t be sufficient to discourage too many flippant OPs from a single member. Why complicate things to deal with a problem we don’t have at the moment?

    If you’re not planning to do anything except the silly thing you’d already done, why bring it up in the first place? Just go your merry way.

    Without Lizzie’s input, admins are limited to deckchair rearrangement.

  3. walto: Yes, for a minute I’d forgotten how ridiculous this place is.

    Who needs new OPs, even censored ones, if the entire time on this blog can be wasted on debates over what creationists can or cannot post?

  4. John Harshman: I have never complained about the bulk of J-Mac’s posts, because silly as they are, they seemed to be seriously intended.

    Can’t argue with that!!!

  7. J-Mac,
    At this precise moment, you can submit OPs for publishing by an admin, currently Neil and myself. My issue with your last OP was chicken chasing silliness and misrepresenting Darwinian evolution as Lamarckian.

    ETA and try and take on board Neil’s suggestion on sub-titles.

    ETA2 Link to Neil’s comment.

  8. John Harshman: My complaint is that you can’t ignore them, because they drive other posts off the front page. Well, OK, I do have another complaint. Some posts just shouldn’t be allowed to live because they’re either completely incoherent (I think we know who I’m talking about) or are clearly not intended seriously (the spur to the current discussion).

    From the horse’s mouth, so to speak. John, you’re free to go start your own blog where you can censor others to your heart’s content.

    ETA:

    John Harshman: I would like to point out that I have only suggested banning two posts: one of Byers, for incoherence, and one of J-Mac’s, for lack of serious purpose. I have never complained about the bulk of J-Mac’s posts, because silly as they are, they seemed to be seriously intended.

    So. Content then. That’s censorship.

  9. J-Mac:
    So…where are we with the ALL attempts do censor me?

    Who the hell knows? It may be that you’re expected to act like a grown-up and attempt to filter your impulse to spout everything that happens to pop into your head. Or, on the other hand, it may be that you”ve been singled out to be put in moderation, where your proposed OPs will be pre-screened by the two experts here for merit.

    I’ve heard both and neither, so if you understand what the plan is for your future babbles, I congratulate you.

  10. Alan Fox: Without Lizzie’s input, admins are limited to deckchair rearrangement.

    If all the rats will leave I’ll stay and go down with the ship.

  11. Alan Fox: My issue with your last OP was chicken chasing silliness and misrepresenting Darwinian evolution as Lamarckian.

    If we’re talking Darwin’s theory, it was Lamarckian.

  12. walto: Who the hell knows? It may be that you’re expected to act like a grown-up and attempt to filter your impulse to spout everything that happens to pop into your head.

    That would be ideal.

    Or, on the other hand, it may be that you”ve been singled out to be put in moderation…

    J-Mac can comment as freely as any other member. His account is not in pre-moderation.

    …where your proposed OPs will be pre-screened by the two experts here for merit.

    At this moment, J-Mac can ask an admin to publish any OP he has prepared. I’m hoping he will listen to advice regarding shorter titles, a “more” break after a few introductory sentences, no more misrepresenting evolutionary biology as Lamarckian, and improved methodology when experimenting with chickens.

  13. Mung: If we’re talking Darwin’s theory, it was Lamarckian.

    Nope. The point of Lamarck’s theory was the inheritance of acquired characteristics. Darwin came up with the idea of selection resulting in differential reproduction.

  14. Alan Fox: Mung: If we’re talking Darwin’s theory, it was Lamarckian.

    Nope. The point of Lamarck’s theory was the inheritance of acquired characteristics. Darwin came up with the idea of selection resulting in differential reproduction.

    I was trying to replicate Dr. Dial’s experiment…Remember? What do you think his experiments has supposedly proven? Darwinian or Lamarckian evolution?

  15. walto: I’ve heard both and neither, so if you understand what the plan is for your future babbles, I congratulate you.

    Congratulations to you too! At least that’s two of us on the same page…

    I have no clue and neither does anybody else…

    Why not submit my OPs directly to Harshman? Once he approves it, it should be fine with the rest…it appears…

  16. Alan Fox: Nope. The point of Lamarck’s theory was the inheritance of acquired characteristics. Darwin came up with the idea of selection resulting in differential reproduction.

    Natural selection isn’t a theory of inheritance. You need to look at Darwin’s theory of inheritance. Are you even aware that he had one?

  17. walto:

    OK. I give up. Just, as usual, a waste of time and failure to communicate, here due largely to repetitive self-contradictory remarks by the moderators.

    It’s pitiful, isn’t it?

    It has everything to do with Alan’s fragile ego, and nothing to do with TSZ’s best interests.

    Alan screwed up, but he can’t admit that. So instead he’s scrambling for excuses to stick with his ill-advised and poorly-thought-out “solution” to the problem, though he knows, as most of us do, that the rate-limit proposal is far better and more in line with the TSZ ethos. If he contradicts himself in the process, well, so be it. Anything is justified in defense of Alan’s ego.

  18. Mung: Natural selection isn’t a theory of inheritance. You need to look at Darwin’s theory of inheritance. Are you even aware that he had one?

    He has no idea what he’s talking about… How can he censor OP’s, if he doesn’t understand the basics?

    I vote for Harshman to be the blog administrator, since him, and the other two of the “holy” Trinity, call the shots anyways…

  19. Alan, ten days ago:

    Lizzie is an absolute monarch, and she has delegated that absolute power, in her absence, to Neil and myself.

    Alan, today:

    Without Lizzie’s input, admins are limited to deckchair rearrangement.

    Whatever’s convenient at the moment, eh, Alan?

  20. keiths: Whatever’s convenient at the moment, eh, Alan?

    Mixing up Darwinian, Lamarckian the third way evolution or all is also a trademark of Alan as needed…

  21. Alan, in July:

    And admins are a check on each other. I’m happy to take advice from Neil if he thinks any of my actions are unwarranted or wrong and I’m sure Neil (I hope at least) would reciprocate. When Patrick was an admin here, though our political views and ideas about how TSZ should work differed, we were always able to arrive at a consensus.

    Of course that all goes out the window now that Neil disagrees with Alan and supports the rate-limit proposal.

    You’re a hypocrite, Alan.

  22. J-Mac: What do you think his experiments has supposedly proven?

    It hasn’t proved anything.

    It has provided a very interesting and highly plausible explanation of how flying might have evolved in birds. But it falls far short of proof.

  24. So Alan, having created yet another moderation brouhaha with his impulsive overreaction, is now refusing to correct his mistake, instead contradicting himself right and left in an attempt to find excuses for leaving his mistake in place.

    TSZ deserves better.

  26. I second Tom English in at least considering front page real estate management. I don’t think such a change needs Lizzie’s approval since it is an admin function of how TSZ appears as a website, it isn’t controlling what content is published, it is only a content presentation issue — maybe just a few steps above the parameters controlling what’s on the front page at the present.

    One of the nicer things in Forums vs. Blogs is that in some forums, the latest comment bumps a thread to top. It would take some programming, but I suppose an author’s use or front page real estate would be managed such that no author can monopolize the front page but is allotted one slot that can be bumped to the top by comments.

  27. I have an idea. Let’s just not “present” the OPs we disagree with. It isn’t controlling what content is published, it is only a content presentation issue.

  30. Neil Rickert: It hasn’t proved anything.

    It has provided a very interesting and highly plausible explanation of how flying might have evolved in birds. But it falls far short of proof.

    Excuse moi???
    Are you questioning the validity of professor, dr. Dial’s major new theory for the evolution of flight that is changing textbooks? I hope you realize the full import of what you are saying…Wait until the self-appointed new TSZ administrator hears that…He seems to be a big fan of dr. Dial and his textbook changing experiments…If I were you, I’d be careful or your OPs are gonna get censored…maybe even your comments if your dissent continues… 😉

  33. Mung,

    Whatever happened to directing the malcontents here to go start their own blog?

    You still hear it from time to time, though not from the more sensible folks. They realize that it’s smarter to improve TSZ than to create a new blog every time there’s a disagreement.

    Meanwhile, Alan seems to have given up on defending his screwup. His claimed reasons for rejecting the rate-limit proposal are bogus, and he’s left his own scheme in place for no apparent reason other than his chronic inability to admit and fix his mistakes. (Given his need for approval, it must have stung him to see so many people — and even Neil — endorsing the rate-limit scheme over his own.)

    So J-Mac can now truthfully say that he’s being punished and threatened with censorship despite violating no rules with his series of OPs.

    And yet another moderation fuckup goes onto Alan’s lengthy resume.

  35. There is no pile of Mung from which you can lop off the top.

    Just toss out the whole thing, then.

  36. keiths: So J-Mac can now truthfully say that he’s being punished and threatened with censorship despite violating no rules with his series of OPs.

    Alan is merely imitating what he saw Elizabeth do when she decided to punish OPs for their content and tried to suppress the offending OPs by featuring multiple posts and closing the offending OPs to comments and made up new rules about what could be discussed in an OP.

    I survived that. You’ll survive this.

    It remains Elizabeth’s blog, and all it’s perceived moderation failures can be traced directly to her. As Alan says, send her an email.

  37. keiths: So J-Mac can now truthfully say that he’s being punished and threatened with censorship despite violating no rules with his series of OPs.

    Thanks keiths! I’m glad that someone on the other side of the issue had the guts to say that, though walto had also alluded to it.

    Regarding Alan’s total lack of comprehension of the fundamentals of the evolutionary theory, I’m going to leave it up to you guys to resolve… How can he censor OP’s, if he has no clue what is a standard and what’s not? Dr. Dial’s experiment I tried to replicate is just proof of his inability to judge what’s acceptable and what is not…

    What is Alan going to do when I submit an OP on non-random, quantum coherence directed mutations?

  38. keiths: Just toss out the whole thing, then.

    No need sir! Mung naturally finds it’s way down the drain. One more reason to thank God for creating gravity.

  39. Mung,

    It remains Elizabeth’s blog, and all it’s perceived moderation failures can be traced directly to her.

    I give her more credit than you do. If she’d had any inkling of the kind of crap Alan would eventually pull, she wouldn’t have appointed him as a moderator.

  41. Mung:
    Perhaps, as his final departing act, Alan will appoint me to be an admin.

    He’d rather drop dead… I suspect Harshman is going to be appointed…He’s doing all the moderating anyways…

  42. I suspect Harshman is going to be appointed…He’s doing all the moderating anyways…

    That’s delusional, J-Mac.

  44. keiths: If she’d had any inkling of the kind of crap Alan would eventually pull, she wouldn’t have appointed him as a moderator.

    That’s delusional, keiths. 🙂

    No. Really. Elizabeth has repeatedly expressed support for her selected admins, including Alan. You’re just in denial.

    If you don’t believe me, email her.

  45. keiths: That’s delusional, J-Mac.

    You live in denial keiths…It came out more than once from Alan that Harshman was the instigator… Alan and Neil wanted to let it go (my post with the experiment) but Harshman and probably others insisted…
    If Alan and Neil are the moderators who take orders from Harshman and probably 2 others, who is really in charge? Don’t be naive!

  46. Mung,

    I agree that Lizzie has taken a “circle the wagons” approach in the past, and in fact I’ve criticized her for that. But unless she’s been following the blog closely during her extended absence — and it appears that she hasn’t — then she’s unaware of the worst of the crap that Alan has pulled.

  47. J-Mac,

    The fact that John has complained about you does not mean that

    He’s doing all the moderating anyways…

    That’s delusional.

  48. keiths: I agree that Lizzie has taken a “circle the wagons” approach in the past, and in fact I’ve criticized her for that. But unless she’s been following the blog closely during her extended absence — and it appears that she hasn’t — then she’s unaware of the worst of the crap that Alan has pulled.

    According to Alan, you have her email address. If you have informed her, then what should we make of her silence? If she’s unaware, then clearly, we can blame you.

    🙂

  49. Mung,

    For what is now the fourth or fifth time:

    I’m prepared to make my case. I also hope that Lizzie will read through this thread to see the kind of crap you [Alan] have pulled in her absence. But remember, you promised to resign as moderator when she returns. Don’t renege on that promise! It’s very good news for TSZ.

  50. keiths: For what is now the fourth or fifth time:

    According to Alan, you have Elizabeth’s email address. Why haven’t you emailed her? Are you a coward?

    Message her email address to me. I’ll email her. I’m not a coward.

Comments are closed.