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.

96 thoughts on “Moderation Issues (4)

  1. Look for a square box with an x in it. Hover the mouse pointer over the square box with an x in it. If it displays Ignore GlenDavidson click on it.

  2. Glen Davidson is an asshole. He repeatedly violates the rules. He doesn’t care that he violates the rules. It’s a shame that TSZ allows people like Glen a platform to express their bigotry.

  3. Here’s a comment by Elizabeth Liddle from a while ago:
    I just want to clarify a couple of principles that are guiding me when it comes to stuff that seems to me to violate the game rules:

    Potty-mouth stuff isn’t my prime concern, although if you call someone a moron or a fucking faggot, the post is likely to be moved. But it’s not the words themselves that bother me, it’s the fact that it violates the principle of “assuming the poster is posting in good faith”. So general swipes at evotards or IDiots are less likely to be moved than specific jibes or jeers at specific people here. On the other hand, fairly mild posts that nonetheless imply that a poster is not posting in good faith (however good the evidence) will be moved.

    But the most important thing to remember is that the whole point – of this site is to provide a forum in which we can actually find out where we disagree, in an atmosphere of respectful enquiry, putting our prejudices to one side, and actually trying to figure out why the other person has come to the conclusions s/he has.

    We all stand to learn, and even to have our minds changed.

    There are plenty of places on the web where we can hole up in our tribal lands and chuck guano over the barricades at the barbarians. This place is supposed to be different. Please Make It So.

    And another

    Assume all other posters are posting in good faith.

    Do not tell people what you think their motivations for posting are.

    Do feel free to probe what you think their unchallenged assumptions might be.

    Do not tell people they are lying to you or to themselves, or imply that they are.

    Do feel free to point out what you think are inconsistencies in what they are saying.

  4. Mung,
    I think this is an exaggeration that borders on misrepresentation. Sure sometimes members frustration comes to the surface, but on the whole Glen’s comments are on-topic and substantive.

    Sorry to be blunt, but colewd’s apparent inability to stay on-topic and tendency to repeat points that have already been addressed would try the patience of a saint.

  5. Alan Fox,

    Sorry to be blunt, but colewd’s apparent inability to stay on-topic and tendency to repeat points that have already been addressed would try the patience of a saint.

    If I repeat them I don’t consider them addressed. Science is always tentative.

  6. Alan Fox,

    Sorry to be blunt, but colewd’s apparent inability to stay on-topic

    I know I did this with you on the common descent thread as you were interested in discussion trilobites. I apologize.

  7. Dear admins, so how do you embed a figure in your post? I can see the upload button but I can’t figure out where the uploads are stored or how to link to it. I am probably missing something really obvious.

  8. Just wanted to salute the admins and mods. The fact that scholars like Richard Buggs Joshua Swamidass and then John Harshman and Joe Felsenstein can interact in this website is wonderful.

  9. stcordova:
    Just wanted to salute the admins and mods.The fact that scholars like Richard Buggs Joshua Swamidass and then John Harshman and Joe Felsenstein can interact in this website is wonderful.

    There are no mods here! 😉

    Thank Lizzie. It was her idea to establish a forum where people with very different views could discuss them with others in a way that encourages mutual understanding. She wrote

    My motivation for starting the site has been the experience of trying to discuss religion, politics, evolution, the Mind/Brain problem, creationism, ethics, exit polls, probability, intelligent design, and many other topics in venues where positions are strongly held and feelings run high. In most venues, one view dominates, and there is a kind of “resident prior” about the integrity, intelligence and motivation of those who differ from the majority view.

    That is why the strapline says: “Park your priors by the door”. They may be adjusted by the time you leave!

  10. Yes, the credit should go to Lizzie for setting TSZ up as an open environment, and not to Alan and Neil, who are trying to take it in the opposite direction — for example, by arrogating the right to censor J-Mac’s OPs based on content, despite the fact that his OPs have violated no rules.

  11. keiths:
    Yes, the credit should go to Lizzie for setting TSZ up as an open environment

    with caveats to encourage participation by those with minority views without having those views shouted down by the majority ingroup.

    …and not to Alan and Neil

    Yup! You’re stuck with Alan and Neil, unless Lizzie decides to put in an appearance and change the rules and the admins or until Alan and/or Neil decide to move on. I’ve been trying to contact Lizzie asking her to clarify her thoughts on the site, so far without success. Care to have a go.

    … who are trying to take it in the opposite direction…

    This is complete bollocks, what is wrong with you?

    — for example, by arrogating the right to censor J-Mac’s OPs based on content, despite the fact that his OPs have violated no rules.

    Lizzie herself made it utterly clear that she (and in her absence her admins) have editorial control over the content of this site. Editorial control is not censorship.

  12. Alan,

    Stop trying to whitewash it. It’s a censorship scheme, plain and simple:

    Alan:

    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.

    J-Mac, later:

    So…where are we with the ALL attempts do censor me?

    Alan:

    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.

    keiths:

    You and Neil are advancing a scheme in which a contributor is singled out for second-class treatment [despite having violated no rules], in which moderators arrogate to themselves the right to judge the contents of OPs, and in which they can censor those OPs they personally judge to be not sufficiently “interesting to the readership.”

  13. Neil:

    That was mostly because of the penultimate sentence.

    What’s rule-violating about “Go back to your cave and wallow in atheist misery”?

    Anyway, you’re missing my point. I asked:

    Sure, he’s a dick, but what is actually accomplished by moving his comment from one thread to another?

  14. So, one member posts porn and doesn’t get banned. A member outs another member and doesn’t get banned. What’s next, I wonder.

  15. Why is outing no longer a bannable offense?

    And given that outing is now ok, why is Gregory still being censored?

  16. Acartia:

    Guano here I come.

    Neil:

    As requested — guano.

    I don’t think that was a request, Neil.

    However, your action did nicely demonstrate the pointlessness of moving Acartia’s comment from one thread to another. It accomplished nothing worthwhile.

    TSZ is much better sans guanoing.

  17. keiths: TSZ is much better sans guanoing.

    It does it much better job when banning people. And censoring them. How about you and I start our own blog together and abandon TSZ?

  18. phoodoo:
    Moderators, I have submitted a new post, please update.

    Published.

    Tom followed my post to him with a litany of ad hominem, “Oh, you are a moron, you are a troll, creationist idiots, …

    That’s an exaggeration. It’s the kind of exaggeration that you complain about in your new post.

    Yes, Tom used insults (which, technically, are not the same things as ad hominems). I did consider moving to guano. But saying “a litany of” exaggerates how many there were.

  19. I’m personally excited about the no doubt extremely important distinction Neil wants to make between insults and ad homs!

  20. Moderators, I have added a new post, that may garner a litany of responses, most of which will likely not make sense except from the perspective of a skeptic; but that’s ok, because at least we might learn what a litany is.

Leave a Reply