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. Alan Fox:

    Alan Fox: Same question.

    I’m making efforts to contact the blog owner.Whether she responds will influence my definitive response.

    If Elizabeth doesn’t respond in a reasonable amount of time (let’s say sometime this week), will you allow fifthmonarchyman to continue to insinuate that I am dishonest or will you enforce the rules?

  2. DNA_Jock:

    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.

    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.

    That may be the case in practice, but in fact fifthmonarchyman is breaking the rules. He’s just one example of how bad content is allowed to drive out good here. I’d like to see a lot more from DNA_Jock and a lot less fom phoodoo, for example. Do you think that you’re more likely to contribute to a site where the rules are enforced fairly or one where you are held to such a high standard that you can’t even defend yourself from flagrant dishonesty?

  3. petrushka: 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, but I worry that when I save time by reading only people like you that I’m building my own echo chamber. I also worry that unfair application of the rules reduces quality content. To avoid the latter, I hope the moderators will either enforce the rules evenhandedly or take keiths’ suggestion and stop moving comments to Guano altogether.

  4. ALurker:

    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.

    DNA_Jock:

    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.

    Right. So notice how this unfolds: Guanoing begins. The “visiting team” perceives bias, some of it real, some of it imagined. They complain. In an effort to mollify them, Lizzie urges a bias in the other direction, in an attempt to create the illusion of fairness in the eyes of the “visiting team”. The “home team” notices the bias and complains.

    Meanwhile, honesty is being punished and dishonesty is being rewarded even when the rules are enforced equitably. That pisses off the honest people.

    It’s a train wreck — a cascade of problems following from the decision to institute the guanoing of comments. And for what benefit? What does moving comments from one thread to another actually accomplish that makes it worth all the headaches?

    Eliminate guanoing, and all of those problems vanish. There’s no perception of unfairness, either real or imagined, because there cannot be unfairness when all comments are treated identically and left unguanoed.

    There’s no need to skew enforcement in favor of the “visiting team”, because there’s no enforcement to begin with. The honest are no longer punished and the dishonest are no longer rewarded.

    And we already know that TSZ does fine — better, in fact — when the moderators are otherwise occupied and not guanoing.

    What’s not to like about this solution?

  5. Zachriel,

    It occurs to me that as a relatively infrequent commenter here, you may actually be unaware of Alan’s egregious behavior and abuses of moderator privileges. When I say that Alan is unfit to be a moderator, that is not hyperbole or mere personal animus.

    Here’s a sampler. There’s more — much more — where that came from.

  6. ALurker:

    The guidelines deliberately give more leeway to commenters who are perceived as being from the “visiting” team [snip]

    That may be the case in practice, but in fact fifthmonarchyman is breaking the rules.

    Clearly.

    He’s just one example of how bad content is allowed to drive out good here. I’d like to see a lot more from DNA_Jock and a lot less fom phoodoo, for example. Do you think that you’re more likely to contribute to a site where the rules are enforced fairly or one where you are held to such a high standard that you can’t even defend yourself from flagrant dishonesty?

    I don’t see the difference in enforcement as being that severe. TSZ is not like some places, where the referee’s bias is so severe as to guarantee the outcome – UD and pharyngula come to mind – it is more akin to a ref who cuts one team a little slack because they are getting thrashed. I actually think that that is better than rigidly ‘equitable’ enforcement.
    Key to enjoying any such site is the ability to not let it get to you, emotionally. If it helps you any in this regard, it is obvious that fmm is talking utter crap about you. And that phoodoo is dumber than a bag of rocks.
    There are other (more intelligent) commenters here who like to get on their high horse, and flog it. That makes for rather mediocre content, too. I’m afraid it’s a guilty pleasure, but occasionally I encourage them.

  7. Jock,

    ALurker sees the value in TSZ and wants to make it better by either improving or eliminating one of its biggest flaws. Moderation is broken at TSZ, and lots of people have noticed this and commented on it. It’s not just ALurker, by any stretch of the imagination.

    Perhaps you don’t particularly care about all of this, but that hardly means that ALurker, or anyone else, should just shrug and let things slide.

  8. ALurker: If Elizabeth doesn’t respond in a reasonable amount of time (let’s say sometime this week), will you allow fifthmonarchyman to continue to insinuate that I am dishonest or will you enforce the rules?

    My response remains contingent upon replies to queries already addressed to the blog owner. Your recent intervention has concentrated my mind that the current situation is unsatisfactory from several perspectives, especially for those that have invested much effort in publishing substantive content here. My primary concern, whatever else happens, is safeguarding the archive. Regarding a time limit, the sky is not falling and the back up arrangements are working perfectly.

  9. Alan,

    No, it’s you as well. I had noticed.

    It’s lots of people, even if you are in denial about that.

  10. keiths:
    Alan,

    It’s lots of people, even if you are in denial about that.

    Then they should voice their concerns. Or are you delegated spokesman?

  11. ALurker: That may be the case in practice, but in fact fifthmonarchyman is breaking the rules.

    Fifthmonarchyman doesn’t seem to be saying you are not “posting in good faith”, but that you are mistaken about your own knowledge. It’s reasonable to ask whether a reasonable discussion can be had when one party refuses to acknowledge that the other poster is even aware of their own beliefs. Fortunately, at this point, the discussion appears to be isolated to a single thread.

  12. Alan,

    Then they should voice their concerns.

    They have been, for months and even years. Take a look at the Moderation Issues threads, for instance.

    Even your fellow moderator Patrick saw the problems. This was his recommendation:

    In particular, I recommend eliminating the ability to move comments to Guano. The only authority the admins should have is to enforce the bannable offenses (spamming, doxing, and porn, basically). Aside from that, admins would focus on the mechanics of keeping the site up and running.

  13. Zachriel: Fortunately, at this point, the discussion appears to be isolated to a single thread.

    One reason, I suggest, to consider moving to a forum format. Those who wish to witness and those who wish to beat them up could have their own sub-forum.

  14. Alan,

    One reason, I suggest, to consider moving to a forum format. Those who wish to witness and those who wish to beat them up could have their own sub-forum.

    That wouldn’t solve the problem. Fifth’s witnessing pops up all over the place, not just in threads dedicated to related topics. The same would be true with a forum.

    And the last thing we need is moderators deciding which topics should or shouldn’t be permitted in a thread or sub-forum. It runs counter to the TSZ ethos.

  15. keiths:
    Alan,You’re in denial.

    Of?

    Read the Moderation Issues threads.

    Would you also like me to copy them out a hundred times? You are unique!*

    *Which is not what I can say for everyone! 😉

  16. DNA_Jock:

    I don’t see the difference in enforcement as being that severe. TSZ is not like some places, where the referee’s bias is so severe as to guarantee the outcome – UD and pharyngula come to mind – it is more akin to a ref who cuts one team a little slack because they are getting thrashed. I actually think that that is better than rigidly ‘equitable’ enforcement.
    Key to enjoying any such site is the ability to not let it get to you, emotionally. If it helps you any in this regard, it is obvious that fmm is talking utter crap about you. And that phoodoo is dumber than a bag of rocks.
    There are other (more intelligent) commenters here who like to get on their high horse, and flog it. That makes for rather mediocre content, too. I’m afraid it’s a guilty pleasure, but occasionally I encourage them.

    I appreciate your perspective. What bothers me isn’t fifthmonarchyman’s ridiculous refusal to accept that I exist, although I find it incredibly rude. It’s the uneven enforcement of the rules. I think that will lead to fewer quality commenters participating here. That would deprive me of the opportunity to read those comments. My motivations are purely selfish, I assure you.

  17. Alan Fox:

    If Elizabeth doesn’t respond in a reasonable amount of time (let’s say sometime this week), will you allow fifthmonarchyman to continue to insinuate that I am dishonest or will you enforce the rules?

    My response remains contingent upon replies to queries already addressed to the blog owner. Your recent intervention has concentrated my mind that the current situation is unsatisfactory from several perspectives, especially for those that have invested much effort in publishing substantive content here. My primary concern, whatever else happens, is safeguarding the archive. Regarding a time limit, the sky is not falling and the back up arrangements are working perfectly.

    “If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.” — Rush

    fifthmonarchyman is breaking the site rules. Are you going to enforce them as you do against other participants or are you not? It’s a simple yes or no question.

    I note that Neil has yet to respond, as well.

  18. Alan Fox:

    keiths: It’s not just ALurker, by any stretch of the imagination.

    No, it’s you as well. I had noticed.

    If you remember, the first time I delurked here was to support Glen Davidson’s complaint about how the rules are applied. keiths and I are not the only people who recognize that the current approach does not contribute to the quality of the site.

  19. Zachriel: Fifthmonarchyman doesn’t seem to be saying you are not “posting in good faith”, but that you are mistaken about your own knowledge. It’s reasonable to ask whether a reasonable discussion can be had when one party refuses to acknowledge that the other poster is even aware of their own beliefs. Fortunately, at this point, the discussion appears to be isolated to a single thread.

    My point is that fifthmonarchyman cannot make that claim without breaking the site rules. I am requesting that the moderators enforce the rules fairly.

  20. Moderators, I would like less posts from people like Alurker, who are claiming they are atheist when they are clearly not, and more posters from people who don’t know what atheists means.

    I mean, I know guys like DNA Jock are dumber than a single rock, and doesn’t even know what a generation is, but even they aren’t claiming to be atheist when they are not. And I think its unfair that alurker gets to call himself a lurker when he is not.

  21. phoodoo:
    Moderators, I would like less posts from people like Alurker, who are claiming they are atheist when they are clearly not, and more posters from people who don’t know what atheists means.

    I mean, I know guys like DNA Jock are dumber than a single rock, and doesn’t even know what a generation is, but even they aren’t claiming to be atheist when they are not.And I think its unfair that alurker gets to call himself a lurker when he is not.

    Congratulations, phoodoo, you’ve officially demonstrated greater wit than fifthmonarchyman.

    Bask in that for a bit then look up “damning with faint praise.”

  22. ALurker: “If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.” — Rush

    That’s the point. I see no need to rush.

    fifthmonarchyman is breaking the site rules.

    Yes, his statements about atheists not being honest break one of our rules.

    Are you going to enforce them as you do against other participants or are you not? It’s a simple yes or no question.

    Most questions are easier to ask than answer. Truthfully, I hope not to. FFM can decide to take note of my request to stop with the accusations here in which case no further action on my part is needed. This pertains to the weakness in the present arrangement. You may be aware of a former member, JoeG/Frankie who was a persistent rule breaker and ignored requests to change his behaviour. I suggested to fellow admin Patrick that his behaviour was de facto spamming and we agreed to suspend his account on that basis. That option is available to deal with FMM. I hardly think FMM warrants that action as of this moment.

    Another solution which appeals to me is to designate your thread as an extension of noyau. Those who wish to participate can, those who prefer a less (you choose the adjective, I’m at a loss to see the attraction) life can avoid the thread. It also gives us evidence regarding Keiths assertion that TSZ would be improved by becoming a free-for-all.

    I note that Neil has yet to respond, as well.

    All participation here is voluntary. Patrick chose to leave. Neil may be feeling, as I am, a little jaded by the endless moderation arguments.

  23. ALurker: If you remember, the first time I delurked here was to support Glen Davidson’s complaint about how the rules are applied. keiths and I are not the only people who recognize that the current approach does not contribute to the quality of the site.

    I do indeed. I hope my previous comment goes some way to alleviating your concerns for the moment. If not then fuck the fuck off! (Just kidding 🙂 )

    I’ll try and contact Lizzie again and if I don’t hear from her in the meantime, perhaps at the weekend, I’ll open discussion and solicit ideas from fellow members.

  24. It’s interesting to watch people blame FMM for their inability to control their own reactions and moderate their participation here. You know, you don’t have to engage with people that say things you find foolish or dishonest.

    But, I guess that’s the inherent problem with biological automatons – they have no internal, top-down self-control. If they’re programmed to react to something, that’s what they do. The only way to stop it is to get rid of that which “causes” their reactions.

    That actually explains a lot in today’s society.

  25. William J. Murray: But, I guess that’s the inherent problem with biological automatons – they have no internal, top-down self-control. If they’re programmed to react to something, that’s what they do. The only way to stop it is to get rid of that which “causes” their reactions.

    Sounds like your beef should be with the designer not the designed.

  26. newton: Sounds like your beef should be with the designer not the designed.

    That biological automatons don’t have top-down self-control isn’t a problem for me. Quite the contrary.

  27. ALurker: I appreciate your perspective. What bothers me isn’t fifthmonarchyman’s ridiculous refusal to accept that I exist, although I find it incredibly rude. It’s the uneven enforcement of the rules. I think that will lead to fewer quality commenters participating here. That would deprive me of the opportunity to read those comments. My motivations are purely selfish, I assure you.

    As are mine. But I am not clear on what you are advocating here re uneven enforcement. It appears to me that you are requesting (perfectly reasonably, imho) that fmm’s rule-breaking comments be moved to guano. Alternatively, you are requesting permission to “reply in kind” on a regular thread. For brevity’s sake, I’ll label this the keiths solution. keiths claims that eliminating all rules (except doxxing and nsfw rules) would improve the quality of discourse, since it would eliminate the tedious meta-discussion re enforcement. He further claims that the evidence supports his contention. I see it differently. I believe that the resulting descent into pointless flame wars would do more to drive quality out.
    So I have a specific question for you: do you believe that eliminating the rules, and allowing you to “reply-in-kind” on a regular thread, would improve the quality of discourse on this site?
    In the specific case of your “Do Atheists Exist?” thread, I think you landed the moderators in a quandry by making fmm’s rule-breaking the subject matter of a regular thread. Given the infinitesimal probability that fmm would not continue his goofy presuppositionalist crap, you were inviting him to continue rule-breaking; perhaps it would have been better to try to move the discussion to Noyau, or here…
    Or, as Alan suggested, make the “Do Atheists Exist?” thread a gloves-off environment.
    Off-topic: nice to see WJM’s sociopathic sophomoric solipsism make an appearance here.

  28. DNA_Jock:

    Alternatively, you are requesting permission to “reply in kind” on a regular thread.

    That is not what ALurker is requesting.

    ALurker is requesting that commenters be treated fairly and equally by the moderators. One way to achieve fairness is for the moderators to stop guanoing comments altogether.

    ALurker has given no indication that he or she wishes to “reply in kind” to fifthmonarchyman’s idiocy.

  29. William:

    That biological automatons don’t have top-down self-control isn’t a problem for me. Quite the contrary.

    What a coincidence. We were laughing just the other day about your supposed “top-down self control”, Mr. “I can choose to like anything.”

  30. DNA_Jock:

    keiths claims that eliminating all rules (except doxxing and nsfw rules) would improve the quality of discourse, since it would eliminate the tedious meta-discussion re enforcement.

    As if that were the only benefit, and as if the moderation screwups and abuses weren’t themselves a problem.

    He further claims that the evidence supports his contention.

    It does, and we’ve seen it again and again. Things do not go to hell when Alan and Neil are absent and not guanoing.

    It’s moderator screwups that are our bane. Think the “W(h)ine Cellar” and the J-Mac fiasco.

  31. William J. Murray: That biological automatons don’t have top-down self-control isn’t a problem for me. Quite the contrary.

    In that case you should thank the designer for providing you other humans as entertainment, is it self evidently wrong to torture for pleasure biological automatons?

  32. Jock:

    I believe that the resulting descent into pointless flame wars would do more to drive quality out.

    Do you seriously believe that the only thing that prevents TSZ from descending into a chaos of “pointless flame wars” is when moderators move certain comments from one thread to another? How does that work, exactly?

    (Never mind the fact that the current moderators do so inconsistently, unfairly, and with poor judgment, often in the service of their own grudges instead of the best interests of TSZ.)

    If guanoing is the only thing standing between TSZ and the chaos you dread, why hasn’t TSZ descended into chaos in the past when guanoing has ceased or slowed dramatically?

  33. DNA_Jock: In the specific case of your “Do Atheists Exist?” thread, I think you landed the moderators in a quandry by making fmm’s rule-breaking the subject matter of a regular thread.

    By establishing a new thread, it certainly compounded whatever problem that had been identified.

    ALurker: What bothers me isn’t fifthmonarchyman’s ridiculous refusal to accept that I exist, although I find it incredibly rude.

    ALurker: I am not lying.

    He knows you exist. He does not say you are consciously lying. Rather, he says you are mistaken (self-deceived) about your own knowledge. This is still technically against the rule “Address the content of the post, not the perceived failings of the poster.”

    DNA_Jock: Given the infinitesimal probability that fmm would not continue his goofy presuppositionalist crap, you were inviting him to continue rule-breaking; perhaps it would have been better to try to move the discussion to Noyau, or here…

    That might be a solution, but fifthmonarchyman might interject his view on other threads. And to be fair, whether someone knows their own mind is actually not too far afield from the topics of objectivity, whether humans are automatons, are minds in vats, and other such notions. Many of these discussions resolve to questions of objectivity.

    Did the new thread break the rules?!

  34. keiths: Things do not go to hell when Alan and Neil are absent and not guanoing.

    You have that backwards.

    When things are not going to hell, Alan and Neil do very little guanoing, and it might even look to some as if they are absent.

  35. Zachriel: He knows you exist. He does not say you are consciously lying. Rather, he says you are mistaken (self-deceived) about your own knowledge

    I think we have moved on to the option of we don’t know what we know and what we don’t know.

  36. When things are not going to hell, Alan and Neil do very little guanoing, and it might even look to some as if they are absent.

    No, Neil. I am talking about cases where rule-breaking comments continue to flow — comments just like the ones that you normally guano — but you and Alan are not guanoing them due to absence or because you can’t be arsed to read the threads.

    TSZ does just fine — better, in fact — when you lay off the guanoing.

  37. To Jock, Neil, or anyone else who believes that guanoing is protecting TSZ from descending into a chaos of “pointless flame wars”:

    Could you explain the theory behind your belief? How does moving certain comments from one thread to another achieve its remarkable protective effect?

    And why, when the prophylactic comment-moving ceases, doesn’t TSZ descend into chaos?

  38. keiths: No, Neil. I am talking about cases where rule-breaking comments continue to flow — comments just like the ones that you normally guano — but you and Alan are not guanoing them due to absence or because you can’t be arsed to read the threads.

    I don’t recognise your descriptions. First I see you are the major rule-breaker here by far. In some ways, that’s fine. It’s civil disobedience. You are following in the footsteps of Ghandi. But then you are by far the most voluble complainer. You insist you are the brightest bulb around here yet you don’t seem to understand (assuming you want to convince folks of your point of view) how counter-productive it is. I’m sure some studies have been done on this. Wouldn’t you rather be effective than, as is often the case here, ignored?

  39. newton: In that case you should thank the designer for providing you other humans as entertainment, is it self evidently wrong to torture for pleasure biological automatons?

    I didn’t say they exist for my entertainment. And yes, self-evidently wrong. Getting pleasure from even the apparent suffering of something outside of yourself is inherently wrong.

  40. William:

    Yes. Which explains how little time I spend on this site and how little I contribute to it.

    I think the routine ass-kickings you receive here may have a little something to do with that.

  41. Alan:

    You insist you are the brightest bulb around here…

    I have never asserted, much less insisted on, anything of the sort.

    We’ve talked about your lying problem before. Even setting aside the obvious ethical issues, does it not occur to you as a tactical point that now is not the best time for you to be lying? That it rather reinforces my point about your unfitness for the moderator job?

    Christ, Alan.

  42. keiths:
    Alan:

    I have never asserted, much less insisted on, anything of the sort.

    It’s an impression I’ve gained from your habit of referring to others as dimmer or dumber.

    We’ve talked about your lying problem before.Even setting aside the obvious ethical issues, does it not occur to you as a tactical point that now is not the best time for you to be lying?That it rather reinforces my point about your unfitness for the moderator job?

    Then do something positive about it. Complain to the blog owner. Persuade others to support your view that I am an “unfit moderator”.

  43. Alan,

    If TSZ is to have moderators at all, they should be folks who actually care about the truth of what they say.

    You have a self-admitted lying problem, and it is one of the many reasons you are unfit to be a moderator.

Comments are closed.