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. Mung: And this is why J-Mac can write that Glen is confused and not have his post sent to Guano and why people like ALurker ought to stick to lurking.

    So Glen and the like can f…off anyone they want and I can’t conclude the someone is confused after the many examples I have provided for my arguments?

    The reason is different: some don’t like it when their beliefs are exposed to be false…Haven’t you learn anything yet?

  2. GlenDavidson: Yeah, but that’s what I said, and since the liar Sal can’t counter this or ever engage honestly with anybody, he just called me a “know-it-all” and demanded an answer that follows his endlessly dishonest cant.

    There’s simply no way to respond to lying shits like Sal who will never really engage, but try to game the simple-minded and highly biased (for some reason, excused by their being in the minority, evil swine like Mung and Sal get away with nearly ever bit of hateful slime they spew, which really just fucks up everything rather than facilitating discussion) system here. It works well enough for him, anyway, since being a hateful piece of shit is his main goal (he really does hate people for disagreeing with him).

    LoL! Talk about spewing hateful slime!

    Good thing there’s no rule against being a hypocrite here at TSZ. 🙂

  3. Mung,

    I feel sorry for Neil and Allan…Glen believes he is entitled to certain privileges on this blog (as do few other) and he shouldn’t and Allan and Neil are torn…

  4. Alan or Neil will undoubtedly send Glen’s recent posts to Guano as they flagrantly violate the rules. I don’t think they will be torn in the least.

    And then Glen can play the poor little victim, which is just utter horseshit. When did they stop handing out spines?

  5. Neil Rickert: Moved some comments to guano.

    Please keep to discussing the posts, not the people posting.

    (I may have missed some. I am not reading this thread very closely.)

    Do you have a handy excuse for why you are not following this thread closely? I provided handy quotes and links. Like Rumraket calling Salvador an ignoramus.

  6. Mung,

    Do you have a handy excuse for why you are not following this thread closely? I provided handy quotes and links. Like Rumraket calling Salvador an ignoramus.

    When comments like this occur it signals to me their argument has hit the wall.

    I have to give these guys credit holding an argument over almost 5000 comments that a nested hierarchy supports that all life is connected by inheritance is a bit of a challenge. 🙂

  7. colewd: When comments like this occur it signals to me their argument has hit the wall.

    I readily admit that. It has hit the wall of your irriational religious bias. 🙂

  8. Mung: Do you have a handy excuse for why you are not following this thread closely?

    My service as an admin is voluntary (unpaid). Believe it or not, but I actually have better things to do, than to closely read a thread that if replete with silly arguments.

  9. colewd,

    Harshman must have told Sal 100 times or more that he doesn’t understand the subject… Neither does Harshman… but you gotta give Sal credit for sticking around that long…

    When they hit 10000 comments, there will be still the same issues unresolved and Harshman telling Sal he is nowhere near understanding what Harshman is not understanding himself but pretends that he does…
    No need to go to the comedy club…lol

  10. Mung: Do you have a handy excuse for why you are not following this thread closely? I provided handy quotes and links. Like Rumraket calling Salvador an ignoramus.

    Nobody likes a tattletale

  11. Neil Rickert: My service as an admin is voluntary (unpaid). Believe it or not, but I actually have better things to do, than to closely read a thread that if replete with silly arguments.

    I volunteered to help out, so save your sob story for someone else.

    Did it ever occur to you that when I wrote “this thread” that I was referring to THIS THREAD?

    Because if you simply can’t be bothered to read the Moderation Issues thread perhaps it’s time for you to move on.

  12. Mung: Did it ever occur to you that when I wrote “this thread” that I was referring to THIS THREAD?

    Yes, of course. But seeing a complaint here doesn’t change that I would have to go back and reread the original thread where there was a problem. It’s best if I catch the problems where they occur, and on the first read.

    To paraphrase Gilbert & Sullivan, A moderator’s job in not an ‘appy one.

  13. The ability to edit posts seems to have suddenly disappeared.

    ETA: weird. now it is back.

    UPDATE: I posted a comment in John’s thread and immediately after I posted it I wanted to edit a typo but there was no edit available and no timer running. No 60 min countdown. But while I still cannot edit that post newer posts are now back to having the countdown timer running.

  14. Give a toddler a hammer, and he runs around looking for things to bang on. Lots of stuff gets broken, and nothing gets built.

    That, in a nutshell, is what’s wrong with giving moderator powers to someone like Alan.

  15. Alan Fox: Moved a comment to guano. Please discuss moderation issues in the moderation issues thread.

    But what if I don’t want to discuss moderation issues in the moderation issues thread?

  16. In the “Do Atheists Exist?” thread, fifthmonarchyman writes:

    I just think you are deceiving yourself

    Paul would say you are “suppressing the truth in unrighteousness” but since I don’t assume you have a developed system of understanding as to what “righteousness” is I think self deceived works.

    I contend that this violates the site rules, in particular:
    – “Assume all other posters are posting in good faith.
    For example, do not accuse other posters of being deliberately misleading”
    – “Address the content of the post, not the perceived failings of the poster.
    This means that accusing others of ignorance or stupidity is off topic
    As is implying that other posters are mentally ill or demented.”

    I request that the moderators move that comment to Guano.

  17. newton,

    Just calling someone’s fantasies wrong isn’t. He is doing him a favor

    On what basis was it validated that his thought was indeed a fantasy. If you cannot answer this your mind is polluted with circular reasoning.

  18. ALurker,

    Moving fifth’s comment from one place to another would accomplish nothing useful.

    Why is it important to you?

  19. ALurker,

    Firstly, applying the rules dogmatically would mean many more comments moving to guano.

    The aim of the site is to facilitate discussion where there is a wide divergence of view with the the hope, not necessarily of agreement, but at least of better understanding.

    I admit it is frustrating that FMM can’t see the inherent insulting condescension in his remarks. I’ m inclined to give him leeway, especially as that is precisely the topic of the current thread.

  20. Alan Fox:
    Firstly, applying the rules dogmatically would mean many more comments moving to guano.

    Yet you apply the rules to people like Glen Davidson, dazz, Entropy, and keiths (from a quick perusal of Guano) when they are pointing out clear instances of dishonesty. When high quality comments get moved to Guano, you encourage more low quality comments — and you get them. Then you choose not to apply the rules even handedly.

    The aim of the site is to facilitate discussion where there is a wide divergence of view with the the hope, not necessarily of agreement, but at least of better understanding.

    Yes, and the rules are in place to facilitate that. If you were only basing what gets moved to Guano on the “aim of the site”, you wouldn’t move anywhere near as many comments as you do. Pointing out dishonesty is a valuable service in online communities.

    I admit it is frustrating that FMM can’t see the inherent insulting condescension in his remarks. I’ m inclined to give him leeway, especially as that is precisely the topic of the current thread.

    It’s not just frustrating, it’s against the rules and I am complaining based on those rules. The topic of the thread is to give him a chance to defend his refuted claim, if he can. It is not to allow him to continue to break the rules by calling me a liar.

  21. keiths:
    ALurker,

    Moving fifth’s comment from one place to another would accomplish nothing useful.

    Why is it important to you?

    As I just noted to Alan, I want to see the rules applied fairly. TSZ is an interesting site, but it’s in danger of losing its best participants because the moderators seem to treat the theists here with kid gloves. For the purely selfish reason of wanting to continue to read those high quality participants, I want to see the rules enforced fairly.

  22. ALurker: I request that the moderators move that comment to Guano.

    It is borderline. But I don’t see it as disrupting discussion. If anything, it provides an example of what is the topic of this thread.

    So I’m inclined to leave things as they are (i.e. I’m inclined to not move to guano).

  23. In “Do Atheists Exist?”, fifthmonarchyman writes:

    Alan Fox: Nope. It means accepting that others actually mean what they say.

    I believe that Alurker means it when he says he is an atheist I just think he is mistaken

    This comment also violates the site rules, for the same reason as the previous one I reported. I request that the moderators move it to Guano.

    I am an atheist. I am not lying. I will not be called a liar when the rules clearly don’t allow it.

  24. ALurker: Yes, and the rules are in place to facilitate that. If you were only basing what gets moved to Guano on the “aim of the site”, you wouldn’t move anywhere near as many comments as you do. Pointing out dishonesty is a valuable service in online communities.

    Pointing out errors and correcting them is valuable. An accusation of dishonesty is harder to establish.

  25. ALurker:
    In “Do Atheists Exist?”, fifthmonarchyman writes:

    I believe that Alurker means it when he says he is an atheist I just think he is mistaken

    This comment also violates the site rules, for the same reason as the previous one I reported.I request that the moderators move it to Guano.

    I am an atheist.I am not lying.I will not be called a liar when the rules clearly don’t allow it.

    One thing no one’s told you yet, apparently, is that such objections have been made to Lizzie, absentee renter of this site. And she was like, well, he does believe what he says, so let it ride. I don’t know if that should rule by now (I suppose it depends on how she feels about it now, and she’s apparently not saying), but I think that it tends to do so.

    For myself, I’d just tend to stay away from discussing this with FMM. He doesn’t so much discuss this as witness.

    ETA–The problem with what FMM says is not so much whether he’s right or wrong, but that it’s the opposite of actually discussing anything. It’s all just “I’m right and you’re wrong” for FMM on this matter, and there’s simply no give, but only take, on his part. That’s why it’s so objectionable.

    Glen Davidson

  26. Neil Rickert: It is borderline.But I don’t see it as disrupting discussion.If anything, it provides an example of what is the topic of this thread.

    So I’m inclined to leave things as they are (i.e. I’m inclined to not move to guano).

    The topic of the thread is for fifthmonarchyman to support his claim, if he can. It is not intended to allow him to continue to suggest that I am lying or deluded. His comment clearly violates the site rules and I am raising the issue in the appropriate thread. Please fulfill your moderator duties and enforce the rules.

  27. Alan Fox: Pointing out errors and correcting them is valuable. An accusation of dishonesty is harder to establish.

    Harder, but not impossible. There is enough evidence based on the numerous comments of several of the participants here.

    Regardless, accusations of dishonesty are against the rules. I again request that you enforce those rules against the two comments I’ve identified.

  28. ALurker: I am an atheist. I am not lying. I will not be called a liar when the rules clearly don’t allow it.

    Can this post be moved to the Cry Me a River section of TSZ?

  29. ALurker,

    I’ve asked FMM to abide by the “good faith” rule. Unless Neil objects, I will guano further comments from FMM containing clear breaches of the “good faith” rule.

  30. ALurker,

    As I just noted to Alan, I want to see the rules applied fairly.

    There’s no question that the moderators here are incompetent (and worse), and that the rules are not applied fairly at TSZ, but the solution to that problem isn’t more moderation.

    The moderators are the weak link here. The best way to achieve fairness and to promote open and robust discussion is to eliminate their power to guano comments, rather than encouraging them to guano more.

  31. ALurker: I am an atheist. I am not lying. I will not be called a liar when the rules clearly don’t allow it.

    You were not called a liar. You were said to be mistaken, which is very different from being called a liar.

  32. Neil Rickert,

    You were not called a liar. You were said to be mistaken, which is very different from being called a liar.

    A fundamental requirement of the blog is to have the ability to say someone is mistaken. 🙂

  33. ALurker: The topic of the thread is for fifthmonarchyman to support his claim, if he can. It is not intended to allow him to continue to suggest that I am lying or deluded.

    But fifth is not suggesting that you are lying. He is saying that you are mistaken.

    lying: to assert something that you believe to be false;
    mistaken: to assert something that you believe to be true, but which isn’t actually true.

    You, yourself, are asserting that fifth is mistaken. Should we therefore move your entire post to guano?

    For myself, I see the distinction between being accused of lying, and being accused of being mistaken, as an important distinction. If we cannot say that other people are mistaken, then all discussion comes to an end.

  34. Alan Fox:
    ALurker,

    I’ve asked FMM to abide by the “good faith” rule. Unless Neil objects, I will guano further comments from FMM containing clear breaches of the “good faith” rule.

    Thank you, Alan.

  35. keiths:
    The best way to achieve fairness and to promote open and robust discussion is to eliminate their power to guano comments, rather than encouraging them to guano more.

    Without pondering it long, I think I agree with you. There’s nothing I’ve seen in my quick perusal of Guano that wouldn’t be fine in the original thread.

    However, if there are going to be rules, I’d like to see them enforced fairly.

  36. Neil Rickert: You were not called a liar.You were said to be mistaken, which is very different from being called a liar.

    He just really wishes God didn’t exits which blinds his reasoning….

  37. Neil Rickert: You were not called a liar.You were said to be mistaken, which is very different from being called a liar.

    If I were talking about anything else I might agree with you. I am talking about my beliefs (or lack thereof). Telling me that I believe something I don’t, especially after I make it clear that I don’t, is an accusation of lying.

  38. GlenDavidson:
    One thing no one’s told you yet, apparently, is that such objections have been made to Lizzie, absentee renter of this site.And she was like, well, he does believe what he says, so let it ride.I don’t know if that should rule by now (I suppose it depends on how she feels about it now, and she’s apparently not saying), but I think that it tends to do so.

    So I can preface anything I want to say with “I believe…” and I’m immune from the rules? Sweet!

    Not that fifthmonarchyman made even that much of a concession to reality, of course.

    For myself, I’d just tend to stay away from discussing this with FMM.He doesn’t so much discuss this as witness.

    ETA–The problem with what FMM says is not so much whether he’s right or wrong, but that it’s the opposite of actually discussing anything.It’s all just “I’m right and you’re wrong” for FMM on this matter, and there’s simply no give, but only take, on his part.That’s why it’s so objectionable.

    Glen Davidson

    Well put. I’m just so surprised by being told that I don’t exist that I jumped in against my better judgement.

  39. ALurker: I am talking about my beliefs (or lack thereof). Telling me that I believe something I don’t, especially after I make it clear that I don’t, is an accusation of lying.

    I have had people tell me what I believe. And I thought that was in bad taste. But I never saw it as an accusation that I was lying.

    When I read literature in philosophy, I often notice that a philosopher will tell me (or the reader) what another philosopher believes. Again, I think that’s in bad taste. But it appears to be part of the traditions of philosophy to do that. And maybe it is also part of the traditions of theology.

    At least for some philosophers and theologians, “P believes X” is taken to be an ascription of belief to P rather than a report on anything that P ever said. So I think you are reading too much into it when you take it to be an accusation of lying.

  40. I have had people tell me what I believe. And I thought that was in bad taste.

    Says Neil, who has repeatedly (and bizarrely) asserted that I am a dualist.

    There are always going to be asses like fifth and Neil around. The answer is to refute them, not to guano them.

  41. ALurker: If I were talking about anything else I might agree with you.I am talking about my beliefs (or lack thereof).Telling me that I believe something I don’t, especially after I make it clear that I don’t, is an accusation of lying.

    Or being deluded

  42. keiths: Says Neil, who has repeatedly (and bizarrely) asserted that I am a dualist.

    That was not an assertion about what you believe. It was always clear that you believe dualism to be false. Rather, I was commenting on the way you use other concepts.

Comments are closed.