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.
What is the new process to ignore commenter?
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.
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.
I agree. I have kept him because sometimes he makes a reasonable argument.
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.
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.
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.
There’s a little irony there if you care to look! 🙂
If I repeat them I don’t consider them addressed. Science is always tentative.
I know I did this with you on the common descent thread as you were interested in discussion trilobites. I apologize.
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.
This comment explains how it works.
Can’t seem to figure out how to see the announcement.
You weren’t the only one. 🙁 See here!
PS it’s not very exciting.
Gee whiz. Thought we had won a prize or something.
Being able to Ignore keiths is priceless.
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!
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.
with caveats to encourage participation by those with minority views without having those views shouted down by the majority ingroup.
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.
This is complete bollocks, what is wrong with you?
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.
Stop trying to whitewash it. It’s a censorship scheme, plain and simple:
No it isn’t.
Dennis Venema has a couple of comments in the Pending queue.
It’s kind of cute how Neil will occasionally move a comment to Guano, just to make himself feel useful.
The place would fall apart without you, Neil.
What is the point of guanoing Gregory’s comment?
Sure, he’s a dick, but what is actually accomplished by moving his comment from one thread to another?
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:
They have their eye on Gregory!
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.
Why is outing no longer a bannable offense?
And given that outing is now ok, why is Gregory still being censored?
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.
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?
Why was it ok to give out the real name of on of the members here. I’d still like an answer.
Moderators, I have submitted a new post, please update. Thank you.
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.
How many were there Neil? Show me his reply.
You don’t know what you are talking about.
I’m personally excited about the no doubt extremely important distinction Neil wants to make between insults and ad homs!
I also want him to explain what constitutes a litany.
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.
It’s a litaneous entity, with a high potential for replication.
Making swipes at people and their parents is kind of low imho. Even if someone here is a bad apple, it’s no cause to even speculate about someone’s parents. Acaratia made a swipe at people here in a regular thread. He can say stuff like that in Noyau.
Yes, I don’t think its right of Arcatia to call Joe Felsenstein’s parents stupid.
With the old Ignore system it was a simple thing to see a list of people I had on Ignore.
Is something like that possible with the new system?
With the new system it seems like I can only identify someone as being on Ignore if I come across a post of theirs.
Calling someone a shit-stain is ok. Got it.
Is it ok for everyone, or just for some people? Does it depend on who is being called a shit-stain or does it depend on the person doing the name calling?
Can we codify this in the published rules?
Which rule did my post violate? It’s not like I called Entropy a shit-stain.
Was it because I quoted his rule-breaking comment?
Stop whining Mung. If you break the rules live with the consequences. It’s not as if your life depended on the comments staying where you wrote them.