Moderation Issues (4)

Please use this thread for alerting admins to moderation issues and for discussion or complaints arising from particular decisions. This thread has been reissued as a post rather than a page as the “ignore commenter” button does not apply to threads started as pages.

714 Replies to “Moderation Issues (4)”

  1. keiths keiths says:

    Many commenters also disregard or fail to grasp that point.

    They’ll call for a comment to be guanoed, fully intending for it to be seen as a punishment and a rebuke to the person who wrote it.

  2. phoodoo says:

    Allan Miller: I think you have an idiosyncratic interpretation of ‘assume the poster is arguing in good faith’, or ‘lying’, or both.

    You think I don’t know which of my interpretations are idiosyncratic? You can’t assume my idiosyncrasies, that’s definitely against the rules. I never called you an idiosync.

    But look, we can both agree, keiths is crazy, right?

  3. walto walto says:

    keiths: ’ll add that plenty of uncivil comments don’t violate the rules and therefore cannot be guanoed. So again, newton: guanoing does not make TSZ a “civil” place,

    They could (and I think do) make it a MORE civil place than it would otherwise be however. And to the extent they fail to make it a civil place, it’s likely that more or better rules are needed, not fewer or none.

    As I said earlier in this thread, you simply chafe at any constraints whatever in your ability to insult and embarrass others. In addition, you waste an incredible amount of time whining about this matter. It’s an untoward characteristic, and an absurd practice.

  4. newton says:

    phoodoo: You think I don’t know which of my interpretations are idiosyncratic? You can’t assume my idiosyncrasies, that’s definitely against the rules. I never called you an idiosync.

    We don’t need to assume anything, they are on full display.

  5. newton says:

    keiths: Alan routinely disregards this, scolding people right and left when he guanoes their comments, often following up with one of his lectures about “rancour-free” discussion.

    For instance?

  6. keiths keiths says:

    walto:

    They could (and I think do) make it a MORE civil place than it would otherwise be however. And to the extent they fail to make it a civil place, it’s likely that more or better rules are needed, not fewer or none.

    You apparently didn’t read all the way to the end of my comment:

    Civility is not the mission of this blog, though you may have gotten that impression from Alan and his repeated (and incorrect) insistence that Lizzie is aiming for “rancour-free” discussion. Lizzie is more realistic than that, and she’s even stated that politeness is not a particular goal of the site. The rules were not intended to keep people polite or to prevent hurt feelings; they were intended to keep substantive discussion flowing.

    In addition, you waste an incredible amount of time whining about this matter.

    Because if walto doesn’t think it matters, then you’re just “whining”.

    Other folks here do care about moderation, since moderation is a huge factor in how smoothly TSZ functions. If that’s not a concern of yours, then fine — leave the discussion to the folks who care.

  7. stcordova says:

    I think Alan and Neil have done an excellent job of holding this blog together.

    Alan, I had suggested a simple rule change to Elizabeth Liddle a couple years ago, and to my surprise, it was a change walto at the time supported. It was this: the author of the thread moderates the discussion at his own discretion and has the ability to toss out offending participants and invite whom he wishes.

    If for example I toss Gregory out of the discussion, Gregory is free to start his own discussion under his own rules and if anyone wants to participate with him they can, but they aren’t forced to. I found that got rid of bad behavior real fast. The addition of the ignore button alleviated a lot of the problems with the present rules.

    I suggested to at least try it and experiment with it.

    We can buy the domain from Elizabeth. If the members want, we can re-organize and go elsewhere. Creating a new blog can be done at no cost. If we simply buy the domain from Elizabeth, and she chooses not to charge us, the domain provider will charge an annual fee of 11.00 dollars or so. If we retain the hosting, it could be less than 200 dollars a year, if we ditch the hosting, it’s free. There will be less headaches just starting from scratch, however it is desirable, at least for me, the threads are somehow archived since there has been occasionally some good material for academic purposes like the discussion so statistical mechanics and thermodynamics and some of Tom English’s and Joe Felsensteins post. For example, I would not want the work on Drifiting Weasel to disappear!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! A lot of us, myself included, Keiths and Joe Felsenstein worked on the Drifting Weasel project.

    The way to do it is to create the new blog, and then we post a message here at TSZ that we have moved. We just need to decide on a new name.

  8. newton says:

    keiths: A lot of people, and not just newton, seem to be confused about Lizzie’s aims regarding Guano. Let me quote an exchange I had with her on the topic.

    You know it would be more productive and persuasive if you addressed my actual position, if I am confused then Lizzie must be since her description is exactly my point

    “I do see moving comments to Guano as a housekeeping function that keeps the discussion focussed on content by removing intervening posts that are not.”

    Incivility does not keep a discussion focused on content, it focuses the discussion on an escalation of incivility. Such is the nature of the internet. You end up with Frankie and William Shakespeare. 1% content, 99% repetive boring insults.

    keiths: I’ll add that plenty of uncivil comments don’t violate the rules and therefore cannot be guanoed. So again, newton: guanoing does not make TSZ a “civil” place, and that is not what Lizzie intended it to do.

    It does not make it less civil which eliminating gauno would do. The idea usually when solving a problem to at least make it worse. And I disagree, the rules of play are intended to make discussions more civil, and without the tool to remove offending posts there can be no “ housekeeping”

  9. keiths keiths says:

    Sal:

    I think Alan and Neil have done an excellent job of holding this blog together.

    It’s the contributors and commenters who have kept TSZ vital. Moving comments from one thread to another, inconsistently and with poor judgment, has not “held this blog together.”

  10. keiths keiths says:

    Sal:

    Alan, I had suggested a simple rule change to Elizabeth Liddle a couple years ago, and to my surprise, it was a change walto at the time supported. It was this: the author of the thread moderates the discussion at his own discretion and has the ability to toss out offending participants and invite whom he wishes.

    That’s a terrible idea, Sal. Just imagine a J-Mac thread operating under those rules. (Or a Sal Cordova thread, for that matter.)

    I rest my case.

  11. stcordova says:

    keiths:
    Sal:

    That’s a terrible idea, Sal.Just imagine a J-Mac thread operating under those rules.(Or a Sal Cordova thread, for that matter.)

    I rest my case.

    Why? You don’t have to participate in my thread if you don’t want to, you open your thread and run it the way you like and if no one wants to participate with you, that’s your problem.

    Since the ignore button was made available, I just use that. I’m probably the most satisfied contributor to TSZ. I have far less complaints than you do, in fact this place is a lot of fun for me, obviously not for you.

    If you’re so dissatisfied with TSZ, then why are you hanging around? You have an obsession with making Alan Fox miserable and punishing him for disagreeing with you and doing things you don’t like?

    (Or a Sal Cordova thread, for that matter.)

    This Sal Cordova thread got a lot of participation:
    http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/common-design-vs-common-descent/

    If you didn’t like participating, then why did you participate so much in that discussion?

    Anyway, I want TSZ to prosper and continue. There are some first rate discussions like Drifting Weasel which will be found no where else on the planet. Seriously….

  12. walto walto says:

    keiths:
    walto:

    You apparently didn’t read all the way to the end of my comment:

    Because if walto doesn’t think it matters, then you’re just “whining”.

    Other folks here do care about moderation, since moderation is a huge factor in how smoothly TSZ functions.If that’s not a concern of yours, then fine — leave the discussion to the folks who care.

    Read it all, mimsy. Nonsense throughout.

  13. walto walto says:

    newton: You know it would be more productive and persuasive if you addressed my actual position, if I am confused then Lizzie must be since her description is exactly my point

    “I do see moving comments to Guano as a housekeeping function that keeps the discussion focussed on content by removing intervening posts that are not.”

    Incivility does not keep a discussion focused on content, it focuses the discussion on an escalation of incivility. Such is the nature of the internet. You end up with Frankie and William Shakespeare. 1% content, 99% repetive boring insults.

    It does not make it less civil which eliminating gauno would do. The idea usually when solving a problem to at least make it worse. And I disagree, the rules of play are intended to make discussions more civil, and without the tool to remove offending posts there can be no “ housekeeping”

    Exactly. Good post. But, you see, all the imaginary people here agree with keiths. I know this because he just mentioned it.

  14. Alan Fox Alan Fox says:

    Whilst the discussion is fascinating it has moved away from queries and complaints about moderation issues. I understand Lizzie will be returning to TSZ in the near future as time permits but, in the meantime the current rules will apply. Neil is now chief admin and I am acting as caretaker until Lizzie can make alternative arrangements.

    As I believe all outstanding specific queries have now been addressed I’m closing comments in this thread. You will see there is a fresh, new moderation issues page, number 5. My hope is that we can avoid Lizzie having to step straight into an enormous shit-pile of mod issues so to provide a venue for more general ideas regarding how the rules etc could be improved, I (with Neil’s input) will be posting a new OP shortly.

    ETA Of course the sandbox is available for further discussion and Noyau is there for flaming.

Comments are closed.