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. phoodoo:
    keiths,

    First we have to find someone who agrees with your version.

    I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description [“hard-core pornography”], and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the image posted by Rumraket in this case is not that.

  2. phoodoo: So TSZ should send all photos to you first, to make sure they are not porn?

    Isn’t TSZ a democracy? Shouldn’t we all get a vote?

    Does whether it really is porn really matter?

  3. Mung: Isn’t TSZ a democracy? Shouldn’t we all get a vote?

    Does whether it really is porn really matter?

    What really matters is concern trolling.

  4. Pedant: What really matters is concern trolling.

    Whether moderator actions are consistent is a constant theme here that has nothing to do with trolling.

    Do you think that Joe was banned for posting a link to porn, or is that just none of your concern?

  5. Mung: Whether moderator actions are consistent is a constant theme here that has nothing to do with trolling.

    Persistent nitpicking about moderator actions is a typical ploy of concern trolls.
    **Boring**

  6. phoodoo:
    keiths,

    First we have to find someone who agrees with your version.

    Actually since you claim is everyone disagrees with his version you don’t need to find someone who agrees ,someone who has no opinion either way would sufficient to falsify your claim.My guess is some certainly fall into that category

    No one agrees with his version seems a more modest claim

  7. KN,

    For what little it’s worth, it wasn’t offensive to me but it was over the top. More graphic (though not porno-graphic) than necessary to make the point.

    That it was so graphic, and detailed, and deadpan was what made it so funny.

    Still, I saved the image for future use.

    Which proves my point.

    Either way, it didn’t violate any rules and should not have been guanoed.

  8. keiths,
    Let’s be clear, honest and avoid spin. The image was not the reason for the move to guano. The message in the comment was “shove your opinion up your arse!” which is against the rules when addressed to a fellow commenter, no matter how amusingly put.

  9. Alan,

    The message was contained in the image, so obviously the image was the reason that the comment was guanoed.

    And it clearly wasn’t against the rules, because the implied message “take your opinion and shove it up your ass” isn’t against the rules. It’s hostile but not insulting. Why can’t you get that?

    Besides the immaturity, the dishonesty, the ass-covering, the refusal to admit and fix your moderation mistakes, and the abuse of moderation privileges, you also continually demonstrate your inability to understand and apply the rules, simple though they are.

    You are, indeed, a walking moderation clusterfuck.

  10. keiths: The message was contained in the image, so obviously the image was the reason that the comment was guanoed.

    No, really it wasn’t. As I said, if the image, or similar explanatory diagram, were posted in a comment and was not intended as a de facto insult (as was confirmed by the member making it), I would not have moved it.

  11. keiths: You are, indeed, a walking moderation clusterfuck.

    And you’re a concern troll, apparently. If you really want Lizzie to come back and sort things out, contact her.

  12. Alan Fox,

    “Lizzie is on her way, she is on her WAY…Oh, wait, her horse broke another leg. ”

    Should anyone really give a fuck if Lizzie is coming back? What is Lizzie going to do that is so special? She is just as much of a guerilla skeptic, trying to push an agenda as you are Alan, so who cares. Lizzie made this site so she could post her propaganda, when Barry no longer would let her do it at UD. Let’s keep that point clear.

    Now she is not here, so you do your best imitation of her in her place. Unfortunately, the materialists bag of tricks is pretty empty these days, and even the most committed biologists are forced to admit that ol Darwin might have jumped the gun. They know they need a new explanation, and they are trying to find one that leaves out a plan, but all that leaves is a vague Third Way teleology without a plan contradiction.

    So you sort of need the immaterialists here, because you got nothing else, but you still do your best to try to be an atheist apologist as best you can.

    The fact that you are a complete hypocrite with your moderation policies is nothing new or surprising, and it won’t change even if your princess finds a new horse.

  13. keiths:

    The message was contained in the image, so obviously the image was the reason that the comment was guanoed.

    Alan:

    No, really it wasn’t. As I said, if the image, or similar explanatory diagram, were posted in a comment and was not intended as a de facto insult (as was confirmed by the member making it), I would not have moved it.

    Christ, Alan. Look at the comment. It had only two parts. The first part was this sentence:

    Thank you for your opinion.

    The second part was the image.

    Not even you are dumb enough to argue that “Thank you for your opinion” violated any rules. That leaves the image.

    The “take your opinion and shove it” message was in the image, so of course the image was the reason you guanoed the comment.

    This is frikkin’ obvious.

    And for the nth time, while the comment was hostile, it was not an insult. It did not violate any rules and should not have been guanoed.

    Once again you are putting your fragile ego ahead of the interests of TSZ, denying the obvious, refusing to admit your mistakes and refusing to fix them.

    And you’re a concern troll, apparently.

    Right, because only a “concern troll” would fight against moderator abuses.

    You’re an ass, Alan.

  14. phoodoo:
    Alan Fox,

    “Lizzie is on her way, she is on her WAY…Oh, wait, her horse broke another leg. ”

    Should anyone really give a fuck if Lizzie is coming back? What is Lizzie going to do that is so special? She is just as much of a guerilla skeptic, trying to push an agenda as you are Alan, so who cares.Lizzie made this site so she could post her propaganda, when Barry no longer would let her do it at UD. Let’s keep that point clear.

    So you confirm Barry Arrington banned Lizzie from UD for “posting propaganda”. Whose but her own views did she post? This is marvellous irony, BTW, that you should be complaining here that TSZ is promoting propaganda while complimenting Arrington on suppressing dissenting views at UD.

    Now she is not here, so you do your best imitation of her in her place.

    Well, thank you. Despite what some seem to think, that has been my aim.

    Unfortunately, the materialists bag of tricks is pretty empty these days, and even the most committed biologists are forced to admit that ol Darwin might have jumped the gun. They know they need a new explanation, and they are trying to find one that leaves out a plan, but all that leaves is a vague Third Way teleology without a plan contradiction.

    I’m sure there are many here that would be interested in a better explanation for the observed facts of biology. It would make a refreshing change if you or any other Darwin detractor could provide that alternative better explanation

    So you sort of need the immaterialists here, because you got nothing else, but you still do your best to try to be an atheist apologist as best you can.

    It’s no secret I’m an atheist. It’s also no secret I’m puzzled what draws people to particular religious views. I can’t believe it’s the logic. I’m also puzzled by the vehemence with which some attack the religiously inclined

    The fact that you are a complete hypocrite with your moderation policies is nothing new or surprising, and it won’t change even if your princess finds a new horse.

    Well, if your complaint is that the drawing posted by Rumraket was pornographic, I reject your complaint as ludicrous.

  15. keiths: And for the nth time, while the comment was hostile, it was not an insult

    I wonder if there’s a cultural problem here. If I were to address a European anglophone with the phrase “you can shove your opinion up your arse” they would feel well and truly insulted. (I’m willing to conduct a poll on this 🙂 ). Perhaps it’s normal for Californians to say “you can shove your opinion up your arse ass*” to someone in a conversation. Is it?

    ETA*

  16. As keiths said, it’s hostile–i.e., angry, not nice, not very civil. His point is that none of those are rule-violating. To be INSULTING, one has to describe one’s adversary in some nasty way. “Shove it up your ass” is not descriptive, it’s a command (imperative).

  17. phoodoo: Unfortunately, the materialists bag of tricks is pretty empty these days, and even the most committed biologists are forced to admit that ol Darwin might have jumped the gun. They know they need a new explanation, and they are trying to find one that leaves out a plan, but all that leaves is a vague Third Way teleology without a plan contradiction.

    Haha, oh man. I see you have been thoroughly indoctrinated by IDcreationist propaganda outlets. This picture you just described is an artificial construction with no resemblance to reality. It is more an amalgamation between the hopes and, ad-hoc anti-evolutionary rationalizations of IDcreationists. A nice just-so story you can tell yourselves about why the whole “Darwinist materialist” community has not yet come crashing down.

    But have patience, it’s only been over 160 years. Any day now, any day. If only you can believe hard enough then maybe God himself will come down and wreck the atheist god-hating materialst darwinists. Or something.

    So you sort of need the immaterialists here, because you got nothing else, but you still do your best to try to be an atheist apologist as best you can.

    It is intriguing to witness you who is so good at describing what you would like to be true, rather than what actually is true.

  18. walto: His point is that none of those are rule-violating.

    Sure. The actual rule says:

    Address the content of the post, not the perceived failings of the poster.

    and the comment is saying “your opinion is only worth shoving up your arse”. Seems to me like it is addressing the perceived failings of the poster.

  19. phoodoo,
    Though I should warn you that repeated posting of irrelevant images may be considered spamming.

    ETA:
    And presumably you have permission from Life/form to use their images.

  20. Alan Fox: And you’re a concern troll, apparently. If you really want Lizzie to come back and sort things out, contact her.

    Even better, send her the message in pictures.

  21. Alan Fox: and the comment is saying “your opinion is only worth shoving up your arse”. Seems to me like it is addressing the perceived failings of the poster.

    I’m sorry, but that’s ridiculous. Obviously, one is allowed by the rule to say that someone’s post is utterly worthless. You really should stop.

  22. Alan Fox: Well, if your complaint is that the drawing posted by Rumraket was pornographic, I reject your complaint as ludicrous.

    What if the complaint is that it’s not substantially different from what Joe posted a link to, for which he was banned, even though he didn’t even post an image, but only a link?

    What if it’s about fundamental moderator unfairness, something that simply is not supposed to be tolerated here, because, you know, you don’t want to be like that other ID site.

    What if that’s the complaint?

    n.b. Hypocrisy is not a crime.

  23. Alan Fox: Though I should warn you that repeated posting of irrelevant images may be considered spamming.

    Again Alan, what do you mean by irrelevant? Another new rule of yours?

    So now you decide what is relevant?

    Besides it was a direct reference to your moderation style, so how could that be irrelevant here?

    Can you stop trying to invent new rules to justify your hypocrisy Alan? You think its not obvious?

  24. Mung: What if the complaint is that it’s not substantially different from what Joe posted a link to

    Alan has one blind eye.

    Its right where his religion is.

  25. walto, to Alan:

    I’m sorry, but that’s ridiculous. Obviously, one is allowed by the rule to say that someone’s post is utterly worthless.

    Yes. It couldn’t be more obvious, and that’s how the rule has always been interpreted.

    Alan knows this, but he’s clinging to his excuse like a life raft, because otherwise he would have to admit his mistake. And fix it. That’s simply not acceptable to Alan, who always puts his fragile ego ahead of TSZ’s best interests.

    Look at yourself, Alan. You know that you screwed up by guanoing that comment. You know that it didn’t violate the rules, as walto just pointed out. An honest moderator would acknowledge the mistake and try to undo the damage, moving the comment back to the original thread. He would also restore the other comments that were moved on the basis of your made-up “continuity rule”.

    You are doing none of those things. Why not?

  26. keiths,

    Because Alan knows the image was porn. But to admit it was porn would be to ban Rumraket. And Alan obviously can’t do that to a fellow atheist.

    So he must make up new rules. Can’t you get it?

  27. phoodoo: Lizzie made this site so she could post her propaganda, when Barry no longer would let her do it at UD. Let’s keep that point clear.

    Let’s be clear that your story bears no relation to reality. The rules say that I have to accept that you believe it. My opinion is that I would be doing you a favor if I were to break the rules, and say that you believe otherwise. But I would be utterly crushed — crushed, I say — if Alan were to disagree with me, and send one of my precious comments to Guano.

  28. phoodoo: Let’s be clear, its absolutely accurate.Your protestations be damned.

    It would be helpful then to pinpoint which bit of propaganda that BA banned EL for, and of course the definition you are using for propaganda.

  29. newton: It would be helpful then to pinpoint which bit of propaganda that BA banned EL for, and of course the definition you are using for propaganda.

    Not that it actually matters, but my recollection is that Lizzie was banned from Uncommon Descent for claiming that the principle of non-contradiction doesn’t apply to quantum mechanics. Barry responded that someone who couldn’t accept the universal applicability of the principle of non-contradiction was someone who couldn’t be reasoned with about anything. He then banned her on the grounds that Uncommon Descent is a space reserved for discussion amongst people committed to rationality.

  30. phoodoo: Your protestations be damned.

    Protestations? You flatter yourself. I once described you as a fly to be swatted when I had the time to bother. I’ve since learned that you are, in some ways, a decent person. But it remains that what you say counts for nothing in all technical matters. And it’s hard to believe that your recollection of the circumstances under which Lizzie established TSZ, and of her continuing participation at UD, is so very bad. Barry loved having her there. He repeatedly jerked her chain, knowing that her responses were predictable, and that he could play them to maximum effect with the UD readership. I frankly was annoyed with her for playing into his hand, over and over.

  31. Mung: And what makes TSZ so special is that it isn’t like that, lol.

    We’re not all equally rational, but most of us try to be reasonable.

  32. phoodoo: Because Alan knows the image was porn.

    Under what definition of porn? You seem pretty convinced it’s porn.

    In order for this argument to go anywhere, we’re going to need a definition of porn.

    Do all pictures that contain a depiction of genitalia constitute porn? Says who?

Comments are closed.