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. John Harshman
    October 17, 2017 at 6:21 am

    I also don’t like that you can’t “ignore” in moderation issues. Why should someone be forced to encounter Mung and/or Phoodoo here, even if not elsewhere?

    Yea, and why do I have to be forced to see that a moderation thread exists? Can’t I have that word deleted from the front page, so I don’t know there is a link?

    Do you expect my eyes to just skim past it?

    I once saw that John Harshman added a post, and I dam near clicked on it, shit. That was close.

  2. I guess we will end up like Boston,
    “The home of the bean and the cod,
    Where the Lowells talk only to Cabots,
    And the Cabots talk only to God.”

  3. Apologies if people are having trouble locating the Private Messaging system. The pink banner is not a link, just a flag to say you have an unread message or announcement. You access your messages by clicking the “Messages” link in the Menu bar, the black bar underlining the Header (the fighting penguins photo) at the top of any page or post. See below.

  4. I’m definitely not a fan of the new ignore feature. Why was it changed? The old one worked perfectly well for me.

  5. KN,

    I’m definitely not a fan of the new ignore feature. Why was it changed? The old one worked perfectly well for me.

    According to Alan, it was changed because the old one “breaks the comment boxes”, whatever that means.

    He also says, inexplicably:

    Those using the old plugin will need to click the little cross-marked button by any user they want to ignore.

    As if we weren’t all using the new plugin now, through no choice of our own, and as if the cross-marked box were a feature of the old plugin, not the new one.

    He also says, regarding Noyau:

    The place intended for general chit-chat is “Sandbox” and that has “ignore commenter” enabled. Seems illogical to have that facility in a thread intended for flaming.

    That makes no sense at all. If someone chooses to ignore a commenter, why wouldn’t they want that commenter’s flames hidden, too?

    More fuckups.

  6. I like the new Ignore.

    When I author a new thread I often remove people from Ignore on the slight chance they may post something interesting and relevant. Now that happens by default.

    If I have them on Ignore in a different thread they will stay on Ignore in that thread.

    If keiths, John and Salvador all don’t like it then there most be something good in it.

    Oh, and people shouldn’t go to Noyau if they don’t want to see things that might upset them. That’s just dumb. Like viewing the posts in Guano and expecting to be shielded from seeing porn.

  7. Mung:

    When I author a new thread I often remove people from Ignore on the slight chance they may post something interesting and relevant. Now that happens by default.

    Where did you get that idea?

  8. Mung:

    If I have them on Ignore in a different thread they will stay on Ignore in that thread.

    If you ignore a commenter in one thread, that same commenter will be ignored in other threads that have the ignore feature enabled.

  9. Oh, and people shouldn’t go to Noyau if they don’t want to see things that might upset them.

    What if they want to read posts in Noyau except for the ones written by a person they have on ignore?

    Think, Mung.

  10. Mung: Oh, and people shouldn’t go to Noyau if they don’t want to see things that might upset them. That’s just dumb. Like viewing the posts in Guano and expecting to be shielded from seeing porn.

    The one official instance of porn was flushed not sent to guano

  11. newton: The one official instance of porn was flushed not sent to guano

    You mean a link that no one forced anyone to click on?

    Of course if you want to view women shoving fingers up their ass at work, that’s no problem according to Alan; its educational.

  12. keiths: If you ignore a commenter in one thread, that same commenter will be ignored in other threads that have the ignore feature enabled.

    Have you tested this?

    I put someone on Ignore in one thread and they were not on Ignore in a different thread. I had to put him on Ignore in both threads.

  13. keiths: What if they want to read posts in Noyau except for the ones written by a person they have on ignore?

    Don’t be stupid. Noyau wasn’t made for wusses like John. It was made for wusses like you.

  14. Mung: I put someone on Ignore in one thread and they were not on Ignore in a different thread. I had to put him on Ignore in both threads.

    That’s not my experience.

    Using my test account (user “NeilWR”), I put mung on ignore in “The Anti-Synthesis” thread. Then I checked “Moderation Issues 4”, and mung was still on ignore there.

    I’ll take him off ignore shortly.

  15. phoodoo: You mean a link that no one forced anyone to click on?

    And no warning the link might contain a not safe for work image and possible malware. A link that might reflect badly on the owner of the blog for allowing such questionable image.

    Of course if you want to view women shoving fingers up their ass at work, that’s no problem according to Alan; its educational.

    Best I can tell it was a drawing of one woman but I agree it was offensive though since you posted an equally offensive picture your indignation is laughable.

  16. This has probably been discussed here before, but how about adding an option to jump to the beginning of the comments threads rather than having to click “older comments” 4-8 times to view the first page of discussion?

  17. TristanM:

    This has probably been discussed here before, but how about adding an option to jump to the beginning of the comments threads rather than having to click “older comments” 4-8 times to view the first page of discussion?

    I agree, that would be a nice feature.

    In the meantime, here’s how I avoid the excess clicking:

    Just modify the URL in your browser’s address bar so that it references comment page 1.

    For example, if I click on Corneel’s latest comment in the sidebar, it takes me to the following URL:

    http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/common-design-vs-common-descent/comment-page-49/#comment-196739

    If I modify that to this…

    http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/common-design-vs-common-descent/comment-page-1

    …and hit ‘Enter’, it takes me directly to the first page of comments. Otherwise I’d have to click on ‘Older comments’ 48 times.

  18. I like the new ignore button. I like seeing the trail of posts, even if I am not going to read most of them.

    I keep waiting for a line of ID argument that isn’t 200 years old. If it pops up. I will be able to unignore it.

  19. keiths:
    TristanM:

    I agree, that would be a nice feature.

    In the meantime, here’s how I avoid the excess clicking:

    Just modify the URL in your browser’s address bar so that it references comment page 1.

    For example, if I click on Corneel’s latest comment in the sidebar, it takes me to the following URL:

    http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/common-design-vs-common-descent/comment-page-49/#comment-196739

    If I modify that to this…

    http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/common-design-vs-common-descent/comment-page-1

    …and hit ‘Enter’, it takes me directly to the first page of comments.Otherwise I’d have to click on ‘Older comments’ 48 times.

    Yeah, I guess that will have to do in the meantime
    🙂

  20. petrushka: I keep waiting for a line of ID argument that isn’t 200 years old. If it pops up. I will be able to unignore it.

    You could try to defend your claim about Wagner’s Arrival of the Fittest. But you won’t. Still, you’re slightly above keiths on the scale of failures when it comes to defending claims. Congratulations.

  21. I see that Alan is back from his trip to England (or at least checking in).

    Alan,

    Things have been going smoothly here at TSZ, as expected, in your absence. Less moderation makes TSZ a much better place.

    Don’t fuck it up now that you’re back.

  22. You’re suggesting that people are commenting less without you here to fuck things up? I don’t think so.

  23. Alan,

    I’m certainly commenting more than usual, largely because I started an active and controversial thread on Christianity. I don’t see any evidence that others are commenting less.

    In any case, what does that have to do with how smoothly things have gone in your absence? Take the lesson to heart, and lay off the moderation. The history — including the recent history — speaks for itself. When you give in to your moderation urges, things get fucked up.

    Perhaps you could travel more often, or otherwise distract yourself.

    ETA: Or simply go ahead and resign.

  24. keiths: In any case, what does that have to do with how smoothly things have gone in your absence?

    Things always go smoothly when you manage to stay within the guidelines. Keep it up and things will run more smoothly.

  25. Alan,

    Things always go smoothly when you manage to stay within the guidelines.

    What made things go smoothly was your absence, Alan, and the consequent lack of moderation fuckups. Take it to heart.

  26. Alan Fox,

    Keiths is a troll and we all know it…Not everyone would publicly admit it especially on your side of the issue. He is the second reason I decided not to post any OPs here. The censorship is #1. I don’t feel like commenting either unless the issue is new or interesting…which is seldom
    Now you have 4 people regularly arguing over the same issues just under different OPs…
    Congrats!

  27. J-Mac: The censorship is #1

    You’re not being censored. Your comments appear as soon as you post them. Currently, any OP you decide to submit requires an admin to publish it. This won’t be withheld unreasonably.

  28. Alan,

    You’re threatening him with censorship.

    That’s a huge mistake, as I pointed out to Tom:

    Given Lizzie’s attitude regarding censorship, why on earth would the moderators ignore that and choose an approach that embraces censorship? Why would they choose an approach that punishes a single commenter for behavior that didn’t violate any rules? Why would they appoint themselves editors with the power to refuse publication of OPs they deem “not interesting to the readership”?

    Anyone who’s spent time at TSZ knows that all of those characteristics run counter to Lizzie’s vision. Why adopt such a faulty approach when a much better alternative is available — one with none of those defects?

    We’re stuck with Alan and Neil for the time being, at least, but that hardly means we should remain quiet when they make poor and impulsive decisions that are bad for TSZ and against Lizzie’s aims.

    You won’t acknowledge or fix your mistake, of course.

  29. keiths:

    You’re threatening him with censorship.

    Alan:

    Nope.

    Yep:

    Currently, any OP you decide to submit requires an admin to publish it. This won’t be withheld unreasonably.

    Don’t bother lying about it, Alan. It’s obvious.

  30. Alan Fox: You’re not being censored. Your comments appear as soon as you post them. Currently, any OP you decide to submit requires an admin to publish it. This won’t be withheld unreasonably.

    I hope you don’t expect me or anybody on TSZ to believe this nonsense, do you?

  31. J-Mac, to Alan:

    I hope you don’t expect me or anybody on TSZ to believe this nonsense, do you?

    The part that amuses me is that he’s threatening you with censorship, and then in the same breath denying that he’s threatening you with censorship.

  32. J-Mac: I hope you don’t expect me or anybody on TSZ to believe this nonsense, do you?

    Nobody needs to believe it. You, or anyone, can test it.

  33. Alan Fox: Nobody needs to believe it. You, or anyone, can test it.

    It was. You caved in to the bulling by Harasman and the other two of the “holy trinity”… Is this what you call reasonableness? I guess the “truth”, as they see it, has to be protected… pity…

  34. J-Mac: It was. You caved in to the bulling by Harasman and the other two of the “holy trinity”… Is this what you call reasonableness? I guess the “truth”, as they see it, has to be protected… pity…

    Here’s something else for you not to believe. I agree with and try to support the aims that Lizzie Liddle set out when setting up and tweaking this site initially. I’ve been glancing through her comments in this thread which clarify and extend her ideas as set out in the “Rules” and “About Me” pages. I invite you to have a glance at some of her comments there.

Leave a Reply