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 you ought to be saying is “You’re right, ALurker. Neil fucked up. That comment should not have been guanoed, and I’m moving it back.”
Instead you’re pretending that Neil didn’t screw up, and that the only reason for moving the comment back is in service of the “experiment”.
It’s another sickening example of the “circle the wagons” approach to moderation. Moderation mistakes must never be acknowledged!
That’s not correct. Note that vjtorley is not on the same list as you. That’s because he engages with other people in the spirit of the site rules. We don’t need to look any farther than the Common Descent/Common Design thread to see that people like you, phoodoo, and colewd do not. Despite thousands of comments, none of you understand what an objective nested hierarchy is or the difference between the cause of the nested hierarchy and the causes of new features.
You’ve all demonstrated that you’re never going to get it. All you will ever do is yap at the tires of science as it drives by. You do not park your priors, you do not participate in good faith, and you are incapable of learning anything that might threaten your religious beliefs. Everything you’re going to say here has already been said. You add no additional value.
I’m confused, What are you advocating, ALurker?
That’s a dodge, Alan. I don’t want my thread to be under Noyau rules. I want you and Neil to enforce the rules fairly.
Please make it clear that “Do Atheists Exist?” is subject to the same rules as any other thread. Please also state your position on whether or not my comment should have been Guano’d by Neil. Let’s see some spine.
You’re a bit of a glass-half-empty guy aren’t you. What would make you happy? A line of theists, not too dumb, just dumb enough, for you to outwit with your masterful logic? I don’t know how this venue can deliver that for you?
Well, I think you should see how things develop.
On whether the comment was guano material, borderline. I suspect you word-lawyered it to be so. And no, I’ll leave the thread as an extension of Noyau.
Why are you making shit up? What is wrong with you?
Yet another moderation clusterfuck, at exactly the wrong moment for Alan and Neil.
I marvel at the combination of dishonesty and incompetence.
This is how things are developing. You and Neil are refusing to enforce the rules fairly. Please change that.
Following the rules is word lawyering? Are you and Neil now using psychic powers to moderate?
I just re-read the rules and there is nothing there that allows you to do that. Please make it clear that my thread is NOT an extension of Noyau. Or are you going to make it clear that not only will you not enforce the rules, you won’t follow them yourself, either?
So instead of enforcing the rules fairly, Alan wants to invent yet another rule and run another experiment just like the one he already did — the one he tried to hide because it didn’t give the results he wanted.
So when asked by ALurker to state his position on Neil’s move, Alan refuses to answer. So much for ALurker’s request, which was “Let’s see some spine.” And it isn’t just spinelessness. Alan is refusing to call out Neil’s mistake. Moderators gotta stick together, after all. They aren’t here to serve the commenters; they’re here to defend their turf against the commenters.
It’s pitiful, and it makes my point beautifully: We would be better off without them.
What makes this especially hypocritical is that Alan loves to accuse others of mind-reading.
So your position is that if you suspect someone deliberately positioned their comment to avoid violating the rules, but still get their message across, then guanoing is justified? Of a non-rule-violating comment?
Again, what is wrong with you?
You are, once again, advertising your unfitness for the moderator job. Thank you for making my case for me.
Which is why asking for such support shows the fallacies inherent in the presuppositionalist tactics.
Compare that with this statement from Alan:
Whatever’s convenient at the moment. Alan lies compulsively and without compunction. His dishonesty alone — even ignoring all the other crap he pulls — disqualifies him for moderator duty.
If we are to have moderators at all, they should be good and honest people. Alan isn’t.
If someone’s core position is that there is no possible neutral space of discourse in which adherents of different worldviews can engage in the giving and asking for reasons for their claims, then it’s not going to be possible for that person to participate in good faith in a forum that is founded on a core commitment to precisely that ideal. And yet pretending that such a person is participating in good faith is one of the rules of TSZ. FMM’s presence here requires the rest of us to pretend that that something that is obviously true isn’t true at all.
The only solution is for us to ignore him, but that requires more will-power than most of us have (including myself), because I can’t allow bullshit to go uncorrected.
Yep. Maybe after a while noticing that the guy won’t engage the best course of action would be to put a final comment to the forum, rather than directed at FMM, summarizing and leave it at that.
But sure, that requires some will power. 🙂
As I said, I’m leaving things as is at the moment. You have the same freedom to express yourself in that thread as exists in the Noyau thread. Seems very fair to me. All involvement here is voluntary.
You’re correct. Alan is not permitted to do that.
However, Alan has unilaterally declared himself exempt from the rules. He has actually argued — and this is still mind-boggling to me — that he is not bound by the rules because he “gave no specific undertakings” to Lizzie when he accepted the moderator job.
So the next time you see a statement like this from Alan…
…remind yourself that it is pious posturing from a complete hypocrite.
Alan isn’t operating on behalf of Lizzie or TSZ. He’s operating on behalf of Alan.
But nearly three quarters of the US population declare as theists. It’s a Herculean task to correct all that bullshit.
I keep telling you. Take your complaint to the blog owner.
Sort of the point of coming here.
Yet all too pointless with some.
Once again, Alan makes my point for me.
In other words, Alan is effectively saying to ALurker:
Why do you piously hide behind Lizzie’s skirts, when you are so openly contemptuous of her rules?
Is there anyone out there who actually thinks that Alan’s conduct has been acceptable for a moderator, and is willing to defend that thesis?
ALurker, to J-Mac:
Or get run over by it.
I think he is fine and if anything more flexible then he should be. I think we should do a Pareto chart of comments put into Guano and see who are the offenders who have trouble with the rules. In the NBA 16 technicals lead to suspension.
Oh, good! Someone is actually willing to try.
Okay. So you think it’s fine that Alan accepted the moderator job, only to argue later that the rules don’t apply to him because he “gave no specific undertakings” to Lizzie?
Yes, no ,it would be a waste of time.
Give it a shot! You can start with the question I just posed to Bill:
Then you can move on to the lies and dishonesty. You think it’s acceptable for a moderator to lie during moderation discussions?
And then you can move on to this:
But that behavior is A-OK with newton. Perhaps he’ll explain why.
There’s more, of course — much more — but I’ll wait for Bill and newton to catch up first.
Have at it, guys.
ETA: And anyone else who is willing to step up and defend Alan’s behavior, of course.
36 out of the last 85 Guano comments are yours.
Could you rephrase the question?
I volunteer as tribute.
We salute those who serve
Asking for a presuppositionalist to support their views presupposes a mutually valid system for showing that support. If anything, asking that question shows the fallacies in your supposed non-presuppositionalist perspective.
Only if one subscribes to the notion of objective morality. And presupposes a certain objective moral framework.
I’m willing to give it a go. Alan has made it perfectly clear that he finds me personally annoying . Yet he has been nothing but kind and respectful to me.
I think that it’s impossible to be unbiased and neutral and I think that every conceivable meeting place like this where folks have diametrically apposed worldviews would be fought with tension and conflict.
Alan and Neil have done better than I can imagine almost anyone on that side of the fence when it comes to treating those of us on this side of the fence fairly.
I sometimes wish that there was a more diverse group of moderators and I would be quicker to remove posts with gratuitous insults and course language
but all and all I think it runs better than could be expected here.
Thanks Guys for all you do.
ALurker wants the rules enforced fairly? Why? Is life fair? Is anyone here under some objective moral obligation to be fair? Is their some kind of penalty for a moderator being unfair?
It’s strange to see moral subjectivists and non-presuppositionalists carry on as if they are all bound to the same moral rules and operating from common, unspoken presuppositions.
At least someone gets it 😉
It’s strange to see people who think that rational discourse only makes sense if one accepts their personal worldview committing one blunder after another and refusing to acknowledge correction on any of their mistakes.
That the presuppositionalists lack such system is the reason to ask for the support. It helps showcase their incompetence.
It showcases the hypocrisy of the presuppositionalist, who asks for support for anybody else’s views, but refuses to support their own.
Mindpowers! Tell us about them grey aliens that visited. Did they probe you? Did you use your mindpowers on them?
Could Allan and Neil possibly ask Lizzy to rename this blog to
The Whiny Grannies Association?
I’d propose ALurker as President and keiths as the first mate…
I think that this minor adjustment would definitely improve the number of the “quality” participants ALukrer especially would like to see…
Just because you don’t accept someones “support” does not mean that no support has been given.
God can justify knowledge.
It’s only appropriate that you provide your own justification.
Mistakes according to what presupposed system of evaluation?
1. You’re a moral relativist. You think that morality depends on your imaginary friend. In other words, relative to your imaginary friend.
2. You have just confessed that you cannot live to your imagined moral superiority. If you’re going to complain about somebody else’s worldview for being inconsistent, then showing inconsistency yourself doesn’t help your case. It doesn’t matter if we share your moralities or not, what matters is that you’re inconsistent.
3. If you presume of being the one and only holder of logic, it should not be problematic for you to support your views in a logically consistent manner. By refusing to support your claims you’re implying that there’s no support for them. That they’re the hot air that everybody else notices them to be anyway.
Correction presupposes an objective standard.
Something that your worldview expressly forsakes.
Here is a suggestion if you are unhappy when the discussion turns to philosophy and logic. Why not focus on talking about science?
I know I would enjoy it more here if that was the case.
Not assuming a mutually valid system , searching for one.
When you can make a cogent statement or offer an argument about anything without employing presuppositions, then you’ll have a point worth considering.