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. I found a definition of porn on the internet (he he he): “Pornography (often abbreviated porn) is the portrayal of sexual subject matter for the purpose of sexual arousal.”
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pornography

    I hereby submit that the image I posted wasn’t porn. Because it doesn’t portray “sexual subject matter for the prupose of sexual arousal“.

    Of course, there probably isn’t any truly all-purpose definition of porn that will be able to perfectly filter out exceptions, or suffer from loopholes of varios sorts.

    Here’s another link to definitions of porn: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pornography
    “Definition of pornography

    1 :the depiction of erotic behavior (as in pictures or writing) intended to cause sexual excitement
    2 :material (such as books or a photograph) that depicts erotic behavior and is intended to cause sexual excitement
    3 :the depiction of acts in a sensational manner so as to arouse a quick intense emotional reaction (the pornography of violence)”

    Phoodoo might argue that under the third definition, my picture constitutes porn, since it would not be entirely inaccurate to claim that the picture depicts an act (shoving your opinion up your ass) in a sensational matter so as to arouse a quick intense emotional reaction. I concede that the intention was laughter and amusement.

    But this then becomes a further problem, because then LOTS of pictures posted on this website will have become porn, because many pictures without any sexual material in them have been posted with the intention of causing quick, intense emotional reactions. Funny pictures of Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton? Porn. Memes with facepalms and or head shaking? Porn. Complicated diagrams with lots of molecules and complex interactions? Porn. A fat hairy cartoon dog standing upright and laughing? Porn.

  3. walto:
    phoodoo, why in the world would you want Rumraket banned?

    Phoodoo will say anything to claim that the moderators are unfairly biased against theists, so he has to argue that it’s unfair for Rumraket to not be banned when Joe was.

  4. walto:
    phoodoo, why in the world would you want Rumraket banned?

    Funny thing is if he wins the argument the result will be his own banning

  5. Kantian Naturalist: Phoodoo will say anything to claim that the moderators are unfairly biased against theists, so he has to argue that it’s unfair for Rumraket to not be banned when Joe was.

    Joe was only temporarily banned for posting his link

  6. Rumraket: But this then becomes a further problem, because then LOTS of pictures posted on this website will have become porn, because many pictures without any sexual material in them have been posted with the intention of causing quick, intense emotional reactions.

    Quit posting pictures

  8. walto: phoodoo, why in the world would you want Rumraket banned?

    I’m only requesting a temporary ban. Like Joe’s temporary ban.

  10. Kantian Naturalist: Phoodoo will say anything to claim that the moderators are unfairly biased against theists, so he has to argue that it’s unfair for Rumraket to not be banned when Joe was.

    Oh yea right, its just anything. One guy posts a link, a link, which you don’t have to click on, and another guy posts an image of a woman shoving her fingers up her ass, and you are trying to tell me posting the link is a bigger offense?

    And you claim you are reasonable?

    Go wank off. Or maybe I should just post a photo.

  11. Mung: Yes.

    Elizabeth. Remember her?

    Please link me where she says that all pictures that depict genitalia constitute porn.

    I predict you won’t be able to do so.

  17. Mung: For being phoodoo.

    If posting what he claims qualifies as porn is what makes phoodoo phoodoo then I agree.

    After all isn’t this about treating everyone the same?

  18. newton: After all isn’t this about treating everyone the same?

    Well, for me it’s more about the hypocrisy of the allegedly better than Barry crowd. 🙂

    I don’t really want Rumraket banned. I didn’t want Joe banned either. Can Elizabeth go back and undo the mistakes she made? Too late for that!

    ETA: Not that anyone asked me or that my opinion counts for anything. HT KN

  19. Just for the record, I’d be opposed to banning anyone presently active at TSZ. Not that anyone asked me or that my opinion counts for anything.

  20. More selective guanoing from the grudge-nursing Neil, of a comment that doesn’t actually violate any rules:

    Bill,

    If you want to paint yourself as dim, lazy, and addled by the Jebus Effect, then proceed as you are.

    Otherwise, get off your ass and read — actually read — Theobald. Then, if you’re still confused, come to us with questions about the specific parts of his essay you don’t understand.

    My intent was clearly not complimentary. However, the comment itself addresses Bill’s posts and the effect they have. It points out that they are poor and do not portray him in the way he presumably desires. It does not address Bill’s failings themselves, so it doesn’t violate the rules.

    But here’s the larger point: Lizzie has asked the moderators to err on the side of less moderation. Neil is doing the opposite here, in service of a personal grudge, creating another moderation fracas.

    And to what end? Is TSZ in any way better because that comment was moved from one thread to another? What did that actually accomplish, other than giving Neil a small thrill and introducing a discontinuity into the original thread?

    Neil, like Alan, substracts value from TSZ with his biased and unnecessary moderation, and his chronic inability to separate his personal grudges from his moderation decisions. Yet we don’t hear a peep from Neil when Alan screws up (as in the case of the J-Mac fiasco, or when Alan guanoed Rumraket’s comment). The moderators gotta have each other’s backs. They defend each other’s mistakes and circle the wagons against the commenters and readers they are supposedly serving.

  21. keiths: It does not address Bill’s failings themselves, so it doesn’t violate the rules.

    It’s the keiths effect! Blind to his own failings. You clearly insulted him you doofus.

    You claimed that all he had to do to paint himself as “dim, lazy, and addled by the Jebus Effect” was to continue doing what he was doing. This clearly describes his personal failings and is a personal attack. Else continuing what he was already doing wouldn’t have the effect you claimed.

    Don’t be so freaking stupid. And stop whinging. You sound like an infant.

  22. And again, there are solutions on the table. We’ve already seen, again and again, that TSZ runs more smoothly when the moderators are otherwise occupied and not guanoing contents.

    Removing their power to guano comments would make TSZ a better place.

    They’d still be asses, but without the power to guano, their ability to inflict their dipshittery on the rest of us would be severely curtailed.

    The beautiful thing about that scheme is that it could be implemented immediately without any software changes.

    And if there were still a demand, by some readers, for moderation services, then my second proposal handles that. It would require software changes, however.

  23. Why do all the moderators hold a grudge against keiths? Is that a requirement for becoming an admin? Because I think I qualify too!

  24. keiths: Is TSZ in any way better because that comment was moved from one thread to another?

    I’m hoping for a more long term effect. Like maybe you’ll grow up and stop with the constant stream of rule-breaking insults. Then TSZ will be better. Yes.

  25. keiths: The moderators gotta have each other’s backs. They defend each other’s mistakes and circle the wagons against the commenters and readers they are supposedly serving.

    Vote for change. Vote Mung. I’ll make TSZ great again.

    ETA: It’s time to clean out the swamp!

  26. Mung,

    You claimed that all he had to do to paint himself as “dim, lazy, and addled by the Jebus Effect” was to continue doing what he was doing.

    Exactly, and what he was doing was posting dumb comments that painted him in a negative light. I was criticizing his comments.

    And as everyone (including even you) knows, it’s fine to criticize comments.

    Now, as it happens, I do think that Bill is dim, lazy, and addled by the Jebus Effect. But the comment doesn’t say that, and it should not have been guanoed.

    And by the way, this also illustrates why the rule is so ineffective. You can, for example, criticize a comment as “the stupidest thing I’ve heard all year”, or something like that. That is clearly not a compliment to the person who made it. But since you are not actually calling the person stupid, it’s within the rules.

    An intelligent person who is determined to stay within the rules can usually transform a rule-violating comment into a non-rule-violating one like the one above. The meaning is basically the same. So what did the rule accomplish, other than forcing the commenter into some verbal gymnastics? How does it make TSZ a better place?

    It’s an ineffective rule.

    Guanoing is not only ineffective — it actually makes TSZ worse. We don’t need it, and we’d be better off without it.

  27. Vote for change. Vote Mung. I’ll make TSZ great again.

    If my second proposal were implemented, anyone dumb enough to select you as their personal moderator could actually have you. The rest of us wouldn’t be afflicted by that poor choice, however.

  28. keiths: The rest of us wouldn’t be afflicted by that poor choice, however.

    I get it. You don’t want TSZ to be great again.

    I’ll build a wall, to keep out the people we don’t want here. Your proposal won’t do that.

  29. keiths: And as everyone (including even you) knows, it’s fine to criticize comments.

    But you weren’t doing that. You’re just making shit up, again. Here’s a suggestion. If you are criticizing a comment, quote the comment, then offer a critique.

    And when you refer to “the Jebus Effect,” make sure you clarify that it’s not something that affects the person making the comment.

    You’re such an idiot keiths, and you can’t even blame Jebus. Grow up and take responsibility for your comments.

  30. keiths: It’s an ineffective rule.

    It’s ineffective because it’s not properly enforced. I would not allow you to get way with such shenanigans.

    You can, for example, criticize a comment as “the stupidest thing I’ve heard all year”, or something like that.

    Guano. Unless supported by something substantive. Which leaves you out.

    An intelligent person who is determined to stay within the rules can usually transform a rule-violating comment into a non-rule-violating one like the one above.

    Again, that would leave you out.

  31. keiths: Guanoing is not only ineffective — it actually makes TSZ worse. We don’t need it, and we’d be better off without it.

    It makes TSZ worse. We don’t need it. We’d be better of without it.

    Who is keiths.

  32. keiths:

    And as everyone (including even you) knows, it’s fine to criticize comments.

    Mung:

    But you weren’t doing that.

    It’s exactly what I was doing.

    Reread our exchange:

    Mung:

    You claimed that all he had to do to paint himself as “dim, lazy, and addled by the Jebus Effect” was to continue doing what he was doing.

    keiths:

    Exactly, and what he was doing was posting dumb comments that painted him in a negative light. I was criticizing his comments.

    Here’s the first sentence again:

    Bill,

    If you want to paint yourself as dim, lazy, and addled by the Jebus Effect, then proceed as you are.

    You’re pulling an Alan, trying to justify the guanoing of a comment that didn’t violate the rules. Like Alan, you simply aren’t moderator material.

  33. keiths:

    You can, for example, criticize a comment as “the stupidest thing I’ve heard all year”, or something like that.

    Mung:

    Guano. Unless supported by something substantive.

    Absolutely not guano. Come on, Mung. Even you know this. It’s perfectly acceptable to criticize comments, even when the criticism is severe.

  34. keiths: It’s perfectly acceptable to criticize comments, even when the criticism is severe.

    LoL Your reply stinks (criticism). It smells like shit (severe criticism). Like that?

    I reject the premise that Elizabeth had such comments in mind as the sort of desirable contribution from posters when setting out her ideals for this site. They contribute absolutely nothing of substance.

    They are Guano.

    Try this one for size. I disagree with your comment because it smells like shit. That’s such a compelling argument!

  35. And Mung once again proves my earlier point:

    Always amusing to see Mung, who doesn’t give a rat’s ass about the rules when he’s commenting, hypocritically whining to the moderators when someone else says something he doesn’t like.

    It’s another reason why the rules don’t work. Weak and dishonest commenters like Mung hypocritically deploy them as weapons against opponents they otherwise cannot defeat.

  36. keiths: You’re pulling an Alan, trying to justify the guanoing of a comment that didn’t violate the rules.

    Your comment violated the rules, else Neil would not have sent it to Guano. And I agree with Neil, your comment violated the rules, for reasons already provided, none of which you’ve denied. Time for you to stop whining now, act like a man, and accept responsibility for your comments.

  37. keiths: And Mung once again proves my earlier point:

    The Sentinel Islander Effect.

    I didn’t whine to the moderators about your comment. You’re making shit up, again. You’re so irrational. 🙂

  38. Mung:

    Your comment violated the rules, else Neil would not have sent it to Guano.

    The Neil Inerrancy Hypothesis.

    You say the stupidest things, Mung.

  39. keiths: Weak and dishonest commenters like Mung hypocritically deploy them as weapons against opponents they otherwise cannot defeat.

    I don’t need to defeat you, you’re being assimilated. But you didn’t hear that from me.

    Here’s an experiment that you can try. Stop insulting people. See how I respond. Why provide me with the very weapons I need to use against you?

    Unless you’re just dumb as a rock.

  40. keiths: You say the stupidest things, Mung.

    Yet it was your own stupid comment that led to this exchange. 🙂

    You aren’t going to change Alan’s mind, and you aren’t going to change Neils mind. But do keep trying. #FoolsErrand

  41. I didn’t whine to the moderators about your comment.

    No, and I didn’t claim that you did. You are hypocritically whining about it, however (despite the fact that it isn’t rule-violating), thus proving my earlier point.

    Don’t pretend to care about the rules, Mung. You’re just using them as a weapon when it’s convenient for you. You’re a weak and ineffective commenter who needs all the help he can get, which is why you’d be unhappy if guanoing were eliminated.

  42. Alan and Neil are doing an admirable job of demonstrating why guanoing is bad for TSZ, particularly when the guanoing is done by moderators who are immature, incompetent, and prone to abuses.

  43. keiths: You are hypocritically whining about it, however (despite the fact that it isn’t rule-violating), thus proving my earlier point.

    I’m not whining about your comment. I’m explaining to you why I agreed with Neil’s decision and explaining why, if I had moderator powers, you and other like you would have even more of your comments sent to Guano.

    Aren’t you even the least bit curious about what would happen if I was an admin?

    🙂

    No, and I didn’t claim that you did.

    Liar.

    Here’s what you posted:

    Always amusing to see Mung, who doesn’t give a rat’s ass about the rules when he’s commenting, hypocritically whining to the moderators when someone else says something he doesn’t like.

    And again:

    You are hypocritically whining about it…

    To everyone but the moderators? Laughable. You clearly accused me of whining to the moderators about your comment. Grow up.

    Don’t pretend to care about the rules, Mung.

    If I didn’t care about the rules I’d constantly violate the rules, like you do. Don’t pretend to care about the rules, keiths.

    You’re just trying to use them as a weapon when it’s convenient for you.

    So? LoL. God you’re pathetic.

    You’re a weak and ineffective commenter who needs all the help he can get, which is why you’d be unhappy if guanoing were eliminated.

    Yet I have repeatedly agreed with you that Guano ought to be eliminated. How do you spin that?

    Make me unhappy Elizabeth!

  44. Mung,

    Liar.

    Here’s what you posted:

    Always amusing to see Mung, who doesn’t give a rat’s ass about the rules when he’s commenting, hypocritically whining to the moderators when someone else says something he doesn’t like.

    Yes, and anyone who isn’t a complete idiot can see that I was quoting an earlier comment from an exchange in which you did whine to the moderators.

    It’s yet another example of dishonesty on your part. The constant dishonesty is another symptom of your weakness. You can’t compete on a level playing field, so you resort to lying about your opponents, just as you hypocritically appeal to rules that you don’t actually value or honor.

  45. Poor keiths.

    He quotes something else he wrote and then denies it has any relevance and then blames someone else for his incompetence. What a pathetic loser.

    keiths: Yes, and anyone who isn’t a complete idiot can see that I was quoting an earlier comment from an exchange in which you did whine to the moderators.

    To what end? To make the case that I was whining the the mods ONCE AGAIN. Else your use of that quote makes no sense and establishes nothing.

    Yet your claim was:

    And Mung once again proves my earlier point:

    Have you been drinking again?

    Because if your earlier claim wasn’t that I was whining to the mods, and if I wasn’t proving yet again my whining to the mods, then your use of that quote makes no sense and establishes nothing.

    Well, it establishes your willingness to be dishonest and just make shit up if you think it might get you out of a spot. You’re such a hypocrite. 🙂

  46. Meanwhile, it still remains a fact that I have repeatedly argued that Guano ought to be abolished. So on that point I agree with keiths. Yet he would prefer to lie about that fact.

  47. He quotes something else he wrote and then denies it has any relevance…

    Of course it has relevance. That’s why I quoted it.

    It exposes your hypocrisy in appealing to rules that you neither value nor honor where your own comments are concerned. You did it then, and you’ve done it again just now.

    #MungFail

  49. Mung,

    Meanwhile, it still remains a fact that I have repeatedly argued that Guano ought to be abolished. So on that point I agree with keiths. Yet he would prefer to lie about that fact.

    Read what I wrote, Mung:

    You’re a weak and ineffective commenter who needs all the help he can get, which is why you’d be unhappy if guanoing were eliminated.

    I do think you’d be unhappy if guanoing were eliminated, precisely because you are a weak commenter who relies on the rules as a weapon you can deploy against superior opponents. Whether you’ve agreed with me on the abolition of Guano is a separate issue from whether you’d actually be happy without it.

  50. And so once again, by lying about me, you’ve proven an earlier point of mine:

    It’s yet another example of dishonesty on your part. The constant dishonesty is another symptom of your weakness. You can’t compete on a level playing field, so you resort to lying about your opponents, just as you hypocritically appeal to rules that you don’t actually value or honor.

Comments are closed.