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.
The Skeptical Zone
"I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken."
Neil,
As if dualists weren’t people who accept dualism.
You sound just like fifth, Neil. You guys are birds of a feather. Or rather, jackasses of a tail.
Alan:
ALurker:
The whole thing is a train wreck.
1) First you have a rule that punishes honesty and rewards dishonesty, creating a perverse incentive for bad behavior. Guys like Mung and fifth get rewarded, while the honest folks are penalized.
2) Next you have the fact, as Alan acknowledges above, that it would be ridiculous if the rule were actually enforced assiduously and honestly. Far too much content would end up in Guano. So the moderators quite deliberately do not enforce the rule most of the time…
3) …except when they feel like it. So commenters quickly learn that whether a comment is guanoed has little to do with the rules, and everything to do with the whims of the moderators. As you’ve seen, the moderators end up guanoing inconsistently and unfairly, and they will even abuse their moderator privileges in the service of personal grudges.
4) But the moderators will go on pretending otherwise. When you ask them why a comment was guanoed, they will typically cite the rule, as if that were the reason. You are left to guess at the real reason.
5) And that’s when they even bother to cite a rule. Each of them is notorious for simply refusing to explain moderation decisions, even when asked to do so in Moderation Issues, a thread that Lizzie created for that very purpose.
6) They are also known for their refusal to acknowledge and correct their moderation mistakes. It’s simply too painful. Why act for our benefit when they can abuse their powers and simply decide not to fix their mistakes?
I could go on, and perhaps I will, in a later comment or OP.
For now, let me summarize:
Alan and Neil are unfit to be moderators. While replacing them with better folks would improve things, the systemic flaws would still be there. We’d still have a rule that was not and could not be consistently enforced, and no certainty among the commenters about the actual criteria for guanoing.
Far better to strip moderators of the power to guano. Fairness issues would evaporate. Moderators would be unable to abuse their privileges. Honesty would no longer be penalized. The “rules that aren’t really rules” problem would go away. Commenters would no longer have to concern themselves with unstated criteria for guanoing.
We’ve already seen how much better TSZ gets when Alan and Neil are absent or otherwise not interfering with discussions here.
Lots of benefits. What’s the downside? The actual downside?
The difference is that I am here to correct any misconceptions and I have done so. fifthmonarchyman’s repetition that I believe when I have made it clear that I do not is either dishonesty on his part or an accusation of dishonesty against me. There is no way to interpret that as not being against the site rules. Please enforce them fairly (or take keiths’ recommendation and don’t enforce them at all).
This comment by phoodoo clearly breaks the rules:
Yeah, yeah, snitches get stitches. My goal here is to see the rules applied fairly. What I see now is that the low quality commenters like phoodoo get a pass and the high quality commenters are held to a higher standard. That’s bad for a site like this.
Comment by J-Mac.
The exemplar of that Goebbels’ quote.
Glen Davidson
fifthmonarchyman writes:
I have made it clear that I do not. By the rules of the site this is an accusation of dishonesty, ignorance, stupidity, delusion, or some combination. Please Guano that comment.
This is my biggest concern as well. I enjoy the contributions of the commenters who are being penalized by the application of that rule and do not want to see them participate less.
I find your argument persuasive. So long as the rules are there, though, they should be applied fairly.
ALurker, to the moderators:
Or better yet, take ALurker’s other hint:
TSZ does much better when you guys restrain yourselves and leave things alone.
Another one for the moderators:
fifthmonarchyman writes:
This is a clear violation of the rules. Please Guano this comment.
Another one for the moderators
fifthmonarchyman writes:
Every time fifthmonarchyman claims that “Everyone knows God exists.” he is breaking the site rules. He has no excuse for not knowing that. I have explained repeatedly that I do not believe in any god. Please move this comment to Guano.
Another one for the moderators:
fifthmonarchyman writes:
Not only is his position irrational, he continues to ascribe beliefs to me that I do not hold, in violation of the TSZ rules. Please move this comment to Guano.
Another one for the moderators:
fifthmonarchyman writes:
Again he is impugning the integrity of every atheist here and me in particular since I’ve made it very clear to him that I do not believe in any god. Please apply the rules and move this comment to Guano.
Another one for the moderators:
fifthmonarchyman writes:
Since I’ve told him repeatedly that I do not believe in any god, this violates the TSZ rules. Please move this comment to Guano.
At an earlier time, when Elizabeth was very active at the site, fifthmonarchyman frequently made similar comments. And Elizabeth never once move such a comment to guano.
This is her site, and she wrote the rules. I think you are seriously misreading the intention of the rules.
Neil is absolutely right, here. Lizzie’s intentions were to encourage dialogue and understanding.
I’ve pointed out the rules that are being broken. There is no way that fifthmonarchyman can make claims about what I know or believe without running afoul of those. Let me be very direct here: Are you telling me that you, in your capacity as a moderator here, will continue to allow fifthmonarchyman to repeat claims about me that I have told him are false?
Alan Fox: Same question.
I’m making efforts to contact the blog owner. Whether she responds will influence my definitive response.
Guanoing is the problem, not the solution.
ALurker is correct that the moderators are inconsistent and unfair. Eliminate their power to guano, and they can longer guano inconsistently and unfairly. Problem solved.
Well, maybe not.
Best consider other options. Here are two!
1) Set up your own site where you can arrange things however you like.
2) Accept things won’t change here unless Lizzie returns and makes the changes she thinks fit.
There’s a third option which I’m sure you can guess.
Thank you for at least considering my position. While I think the rules are quite clear, whoever pays the piper calls the tune.
For the record, I’m not trying to be a dick (although I’m capable of playing one on
TVthe internet). I’ve lurked here for quite some time, dipping in more or less deeply as my time allows. At its best, TSZ has some of the best science-based discussions of Intelligent Design of any website. I value those. I see the quality of the site threatened by misapplication of rules that protect low quality content producers and risk driving off high quality content producers. People will only put up with dishonesty and abuse for so long.If you’re going to have rules, you should enforce them fairly and periodically reconsider whether or not they improve the site.
It’s not my site. I’m the unpaid help along with Neil. Maybe we needed the trigger to look at alternatives. Whatever happens the archive is safe.
keiths:
Alan:
Of course it is. If you guys can’t guano comments, then your poor judgment is no longer a factor. It gets removed from the equation. Every comment is treated fairly and consistently, because none are guanoed.
Problem solved.
We’ve been through this before. Setting up a separate site does not solve TSZ’s problems. Obviously.
Again, that’s not a solution. Accepting the status quo does not make the problems go away.
I’ve suggested something that is a solution, and one that is within your current powers as moderators. You aren’t required to guano comments. TSZ gets worse when you do, and better when you don’t. Why not simply stop guanoing?
keiths,
Take the third option.
Which is? Don’t be shy, Alan.
ALurker,
I think the problem you bring up is legit.
We have posters here that foul almost every time and then berate the moderators when called.
If the site is going to enforce the rules it needs to be done among all the participants. I don’t have a problem with the rules as long as they are consistently enforced.
The ignore button is your other option.
Greeting,
I seem to have trouble accessing my messages i says i dont have permission
Wenlok23,
Try now.
Got it thank you
Keep doing what you are doing
newton,
If that were option three, why would he be so shy about stating it?
ALurker:
Alan:
You and Neil love to point out that you are unpaid, and you do it repeatedly. But why? It doesn’t excuse your appalling behavior. You knew the job was unpaid when you accepted it.
Second, I am suggesting a change that would reduce your workload dramatically. If you feel you are being inadequately compensated, you should welcome the change. Instead, you resist it and cling to your moderator powers.
Third, you are free to resign. By your own account, you have been trying to do so for years:
(That was in July.)
Why are you waiting? We already know that TSZ does just fine — much better, in fact — in your absence. Guanoing isn’t a service, it’s an anti-service that makes TSZ worse. What’s the point of waiting for Lizzie to “relieve” you, as if your interim guanoing were actually of value?
Also, it’s annoying to see you play the “it’s not my site” card, when you so frequently act as if the opposite were true.
walto called you on it a few months ago:
I followed up on that:
It certainly was ,as demonstrated , the most likely option.
We find the moderation reasonably liberal. The foundational rule for this forum was to only address the arguments and not the arguer. While some pibble pabble is expected, it’s rather a chore to read through long personal harangues looking for relevant content, so some moderation is helpful and appreciated.
Zachriel,
That doesn’t make sense.
The absence of relevant content is not the criterion for guanoing. So if your goal is to find and read relevant content, then guanoing has made your life more difficult. You now have to read through both guanoed and unguanoed comments, looking for relevant content.
newton,
You still haven’t answered the question. If option three were “continue as you are”, why would Alan be so shy about stating it?
Don’t know ,maybe It was too depressing to contemplate.
That doesn’t make sense either. He was already contemplating it. Just too shy, for some unknown reason, to state it.
Besides, what’s depressing about my suggestions? Alan complains about being unpaid, and he says he wants to resign. I’m suggesting that he go ahead and resign, or that he stop guanoing comments at the very least. Either way, he gets what he supposedly wants: a lighter workload.
And the rest of us benefit hugely once he is no longer interfering with discussion.
You may be right, perhaps the third option has some anatomical element to it and his natural modesty prevents mentioning it. It did seem he thought you would be able to guess it, any guess?
Sure, I have guesses, and it wouldn’t surprise me at all if Alan’s third option turned out to be something childish that he’s ashamed to state publicly.
But those are just guesses, as are yours, and I’d prefer to hear it from him, if he can summon the requisite courage.
newton,
Indeed, though it could be phrased in many ways. “Carry on regardless” would be one European English way of putting it.
It’s an ideal that is simply expressed, and for the vast majority of participants for most of the time, achievable without any input from admins. But we are at a bit of a crossroads. Two years’ absence by the founding person from her personal blog is rather long. I’m hoping for some input from Lizzie but she’s not responded so far.
Alan Fox,
Well, your efforts are appreciated nonetheless.
Zachriel,
It’s a two way street! I’ve had a great deal of pleasure from reading your contributions (there should be more here but elsewhere, certainly) over the years. And thanks! 🙂
Agreed.
And the absence of relevant content is in fact a criterion for guanoing.
To address AJLurker’s comments, I find that it helps to remember that, thanks to his goofy presuppositionalism, everything that FMM claims about anything or anyone has been revealed to him in some undefined mystical manner by his invisible friend. There’s a Hitchens quote that’s apposite here.
The guidelines deliberately give more leeway to commenters who are perceived as being from the “visiting” team, that is, those who are NOT reality-based.
And you really can’t get much less reality-based than phoodoo.
Seemed likely
The result is that some posters are universally worth reading, and others can be skipped with no loss.
Reading the substantive posts always provides clues as to whether the opposition has made a worthwhile point.
I agree, in general. Unfortunately, there are some posters in between the two extremes, who often produce substantive content but have a tendency, if unchecked, to descend into endless flame wars or tedious (to me, at least) meta-discussion.
Secondly, I myself lack the self-restraint to avoid the whole SIWOTI syndrome. One could argue that the goals of this site entail an obligation to not let falsehoods pass unchallenged, but I fear that is a rationalization.
There’s a Jeff Goldblum quote that’s apposite here. 😮
DNA_Jock:
Here’s what I actually wrote:
Which is true. And the distinction is crucial, because it shows why the benefit that Zachriel cites is not a benefit in reality.
Comments are routinely guanoed despite containing relevant content. For that very reason, you’ll often see Alan writing things like “feel free to repost that comment minus the offending content”.
To assume that guanoed comments don’t contain relevant content is therefore incorrect.
As I explained:
What Zachriel pointed to is actually a deficiency, not a benefit, of guanoing.
Alan has answered, to an extent. Will you, Neil?
fifthmonarchyman is continuing to make his false claims about my state of belief and knowledge in the “Do Atheists Exist?” thread. Are you going to Guano those comments for clearly violating the rules or not?