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 thoughts on “Moderation Issues (4)

  1. ALurker: Telling other people what they believe or know, after repeatedly being told otherwise, is utterly disrespectful.

    Telling other people, that telling other people what they believe or know, after repeatedly being told otherwise, is utterly disrespectful, is utterly disrespectful. .

    Are you part of MKUltra?

  2. phoodoo: Telling other people, that telling other people what they believe or know, after repeatedly being told otherwise, is utterly disrespectful, is utterly disrespectful..

    Are you part of MKUltra?

    Kinda like ,you are racist for pointing out my racism?

  3. colewd:

    36 to 0 since September

    You appear to have a unique perspective. Do you think you understand the rules better then the moderators?

    In this case it’s clear that the comment did not violate the rules. If you think it did, point to the exact rule and quote my exact words.

    You did not ask them how they would perceived, you questioned the honesty of his intent.Wonder what others think?

    The rules say nothing about perception. They are very clear about what is allowed and not allowed.

    Of course, Alan ignores what is allowed and does what is not allowed. Great moderation, there.

  4. newton: You realize that according to a strict interpretation of the rules all non moderation posts on this threadshouldbe sent to guano to avoid cluttering up this thread.

    I was responding to a comment of yours. Do you want to join me in Guano? (Is that the TSZ version of “Do you want to take this outside?”)

    I realize that Fifth can be frustrating but I think no one can doubt the sincerity of his beliefs. And as one of the vocal proponents of theism he provides a diversity of opinion which this site was founded to promote. And for me the preservation that diversity has a greater benefit than fifth views on the existence of atheism cause harm. I realize that that is subjective judgement, but I think it is worth considering. For the record the owner seemed to share that feeling. In this particular casethe greater good is served by neglect.

    None of this say that Fifth should be given a pass in other areas.

    If that is the desired goal then the rules should be changed, not simply ignored or arbitrarily enforced. I think it was Kantian Naturalist who pointed out that fifthmonarchyman’s presuppositions are incompatible with the approach this site takes to discussion. He should either follow the rules or not participate on topics where he refuses to follow the rules.

    Frankly, I don’t see that he adds anything of substance, aside from what other people write in response to him.

  5. @ Alurker

    I’m a little short of time currently but I’ve enough just to ask this.

    What are your views on sockpuppetry?

  6. Alan, to ALurker:

    I’m a little short of time currently but I’ve enough just to ask this.

    What are your views on sockpuppetry?

    WTF?

    You can’t be complaining about pseudonyms, since there are plenty of those here (to the dismay of Tom English).

    So are you actually implying that ALurker is a sockpuppet in the classic sense?

    A sockpuppet is an online identity used for purposes of deception. The term, a reference to the manipulation of a simple hand puppet made from a sock, originally referred to a false identity assumed by a member of an Internet community who spoke to, or about, themselves while pretending to be another person

    If so, I’d love to hear how you got that idea.

  7. Alan,

    FWIW, I think you’re doing a fabulous job relative to the monetary compensation you are getting for being an admin and mod. Same for Neil.

  8. Alan wrote in the Atheist exist thread:

    Added In Edit by Alan Fox 16.48 CET 11th January, 2018

    This thread is designated as an extension of Noyau. This means only basic rules apply. The “good faith” rule, the “accusations of dishonesty” rule do not apply in this thread.

    I’ve advocated that threads can be organized under Noyau rules if the author requests. I’d suggests giving authors the option of requesting Noyau rules on their discussions, and thus the mods only need to police things like links to taboo material.

    It will make the mods jobs a lot easier. This is now a viable option since ignore button is available on threads.

    Btw, I think keiths has put hundreds of comments on my threads that I never read. I appreciate all the time he’s invested in reading my comments and responding with comments I’ll never read.

  9. Alan,

    Not implying, just asking.

    Right. You were just wondering, apropos of nothing, about ALurker’s views on sockpuppetry.

    It’s just curiosity, that’s all.

  10. Jock,

    It’s getting a bit harder to maintain your “I haven’t seen any evidence of Alan’s dishonesty” stance, isn’t it?

  11. Alan,

    I’m curious, yes. For that matter, what do you think about sockpuppetry?

    Pseudonyms are fine. Sockpuppetry as defined above is dishonest and reprehensible.

    You are a grade A prick, Alan.

  12. Alan,

    Glad you agree.

    So stop lying about “Not implying, just asking.”

    Be brave, state your claim explicitly, and back it up.

  13. Alan,

    All I’ve done is to ask Alurker for his views on sockpuppetry.

    Bullshit. What you’ve done is to insinuate that ALurker is a sockpuppet or a sockpuppeteer.

    And now you’re lying about it, pretending that you’re “not implying, just asking”.

    A good moderator (or a good person, for that matter) would not make such a serious insinuation without being prepared and willing to back it up.

    State your case.

  14. keiths: A good moderator (or a good person, for that matter) would not make such a serious insinuation without being prepared and willing to back it up.

    Again, I agree. Does Alurker?

  15. Alan,

    I can’t tell whether you’re acknowledging that you’re a bad moderator or claiming to be willing to back up your insinuation. If it’s the latter, then your refusal to back it up, despite repeated requests, demonstrates that you are not willing.

    Again: State your case, and stop lying about how you’re “not implying, just asking.”

  16. keiths,
    While waiting for a response from Alurker, maybe you could answer a technical question.

    How is it that Alurker has the same IP address as our former admin, Patrick?

  17. Alan,

    How is it that Alurker has the same IP address as our former admin, Patrick?

    If that’s actually true, then perhaps it is Patrick. If so, then why are you accusing him of sockpuppetry? It doesn’t fit the definition:

    A sockpuppet is an online identity used for purposes of deception. The term, a reference to the manipulation of a simple hand puppet made from a sock, originally referred to a false identity assumed by a member of an Internet community who spoke to, or about, themselves while pretending to be another person.

    Has ALurker spoken to, or about, Patrick while pretending to be someone else?

  18. If it is in fact Patrick, then I think he has been deceptive in not revealing that, and I disapprove. But I see no evidence of sockpuppetry.

  19. Alan,

    Your claim…

    Not implying, just asking.

    …was obviously false. Readers watched you lie through your teeth.

    Ethics aside, how does it benefit you to lie to the readership when you are trying to defend yourself against charges of unfitness?

  20. Alan:

    Because it would be a normal reaction to be embarrassed.

    About what? What specifically have I done that you think I should be embarrassed about?

  21. Alan,

    I told you. Sheesh!

    Enough of the evasions.

    What specifically have I done that you think I should be sheepish or embarrassed about?

  22. Poor Alan. You can practically hear the air leaking out of his balloon.

    Alan:

    Your hypocrisy.

    What specifically have I done that was hypocritical? Identify it specifically, please. Have I emphasized the word ‘specific’ enough?

  23. Meanwhile, you got caught lying again, saying that you were “not implying, just asking”.

    Christ, Alan. When will you learn?

  24. keiths: Jock,

    It’s getting a bit harder to maintain your “I haven’t seen any evidence of Alan’s dishonesty” stance, isn’t it?

    No, I’m fine, thank you for asking. You have yet to provide me with an example…
    Although I am curious, are you attempting to reference Alan’s groundless insinuation that ALurker is hiding his true identity (keiths`s take on the situation), or Alan’s attempt to determine whether ALurker is in fact Patrick, given that they post from the same IP address (the reality)? Someone on some blog warned me that I was bedeviled by my “tendency to rush to judgement before gathering the facts”. I’ve taken the advice to heart.
    But I don’t really see the dishonesty in setting a trap that is so obvious that even keiths can spot it…Or is it your position that rhetorical questions are per se dishonest?
    But I am enjoying your hanging your hat on that rather narrow definition of sockpuppetry. Personally, I don’t think one has to talk about oneself for it to qualify as sockpuppetry, but I also think that the deception can be justified, under certain circumstances. Many a time have I read someone declaring they will “Sock up” in order to troll UD… So those are my views on using alternate online ID’s to deceive.
    And remember, no-one has accused ALurker of sockpuppetry, but I think that all three of us would be interested to hear his views on the subject. Amirite?

  25. DNA_Jock,

    Indeed. Patrick, Keiths and I have all indulged at UD. But Patrick has a current account and left voluntarily. He was pretending to be someone else agreeing with his own views.

  26. Alan:

    Oh sure.

    So what specifically should I feel sheepish or embarrassed about, in your opinion?

    Stop evading the question and answer it.

  27. keiths:
    Alan:

    So what specifically should I feel sheepish or embarrassed about, in your opinion?

    Stop evading the question and answer it.

    Reread the thread from your comment where you respond to my query to Alurker/Patrick regarding his views on sockpuppetry. If you don’t see why your position is hypocritical and that a normal reaction in your situation might be embarrassment, I have little hope of explaining it to you. It may be that you lack empathy. I don’t know, but I find your stance here frankly bizarre.

  28. And Patrick
    It must be obvious to you that I am hugely disappointed by this episode. Perhaps there is something you can say in mitigation. Perhaps there is an explanation that you can offer. Please let us hear from you.

  29. LOL.

    Alan: You should be sheepish.

    keiths: About what, specifically?

    Alan: The normal reaction would be to be embarrassed.

    keiths: What should I be embarrassed about, specifically?

    Alan: Sheesh! I told you already!

    keiths: No, you didn’t.

    Alan: Oh, wait. No, I didn’t.

    Alan: Um, you should be sheepish about your hypocrisy!

    keiths: What specifically have I done that was hypocritical?

    Alan: Your hypocrisy amazes me.

    keiths: What specifically have I done that was hypocritical?

    Alan: Um, read your comment. If you can’t see how hypocritical that is, I can’t help you.

    Too funny.

Comments are closed.