Please use this thread for (and only for) alerting admins to moderation issues and for raising complaints arising from particular decisions. We remind participants that TSZ is a benign dictatorship, the property of Dr. Elizabeth Liddle. All decisions regarding policy and implementation are hers alone.
Alan, in Moderation Issues (4):
What is wrong with you, Alan? You already disgraced yourself in your handling of the ALurker affair, in which you abused your moderator privileges multiple times.
Now you’re doing it again, closing the old Moderation Issues thread for no valid reason. You’re doing it purely out of self-interest. Shameful.
Alan:
Neil, the “caretaker” has just abused his privileges. Please step in and reverse his move, which was to close the Moderation Issues (4) thread, purely out of self-interest, in the midst of a vigorous, ongoing discussion.
If this is what being a “caretaker” means, then TSZ can’t afford to have a caretaker.
In what way? If you insist, you can carry on here. I’m suggesting that a line is drawn. I’m not surprised you disagree. Disappointed, not surprised.
There will be a new thread shortly to discuss ideas regarding improvements to TSZ.
keiths:
Alan:
In the most painfully obvious way.
Of course you are, because you disgraced and humiliated yourself on the other side of that line. So you’ve tried to sweep all of that away, against TSZ’s interests and for your own benefit.
And you’re allowed to state your view without let or hindrance. What an inconvenience for you!
keiths:
Alan:
There’s no reason to wait for a new thread. You’ve abused your “caretaker” privileges, and Neil as “chief admin” is responsible for stopping and reversing the abuse.
Neil?
“ We remind participants that TSZ is a benign dictatorship, the property of Dr. Elizabeth Liddle. All decisions regarding policy and implementation are hers alone.“
Interesting addition.
newton:
Indeed, considering that the person who added it routinely ignores her stated wishes in his role as moderator.
Neil,
Please guano this post, it is on a “normal” thread. I’m feeling clannish today.
Jock:
Sure looks that way.
Sorry for the double quote
Alan, in the prematurely closed Moderation Issues (4) thread:
Here’s that OP:
Incredibly, Neil is guanoing comments that directly address the topic and absolutely belong there, including this one:
Ponder that. Neil actually guanoed that comment out of a thread soliciting ideas for the future of TSZ.
Neil,
Do you actually agree with Alan’s bizarre decision to close comments in the Moderation Issues (4) thread, and if so, why?
Neil,
I drew your attention to Alan’s latest abuse — closing comments on the Moderation Issues (4) thread — hours ago. You have posted and even guanoed some comments since then, including one that explicitly mentions Alan’s action, so you cannot claim to be unaware of it.
Why haven’t you responded, either by undoing Alan’s action or by explaining your refusal to do so? You know, as all of us do, that Lizzie expects you to respond to issues raised on this thread. Whence your contemptuous refusal to do your job?
Attention is focused on you two moderators right now due to Alan’s disgraceful behavior. Do you really think that this is a good time to shirk your responsibilities?
Or to guano comments from a thread where they are germane to the topic and perfectly appropriate?
@ JoeG
We need that assurance before we can reinstate your account.
I’m catching up, so I need to copy a couple of responses from Moderation Issues (4).
DNA_Jock wrote:
I see that there is a new thread open for discussing improvements to the site. My response is simple: When fifthmonarchyman breaks the rules his comments should be moved to Guano. It doesn’t matter why he’s breaking the rules or how deeply he believes what he’s saying, consistent enforcement is only fair.
More importantly to me, inconsistent enforcement encourages more fifthmonarchmans and phoodoos while discouraging DNA_Jocks and Glen Davidsons. That’s bad for the quality of the site.
Do you have a better alternative?
Alan Fox writes:
These queries from me haven’t been answered:
I think everyone on the site deserves an answer. What are the real rules?
ALurker,
Yes, but you may not like it:
Limit your response to fmm to simply stating your disagreement.
It could be “I exist, therefore, you are wrong.”, or “I reject your premise.”, or whatever.
Doesn’t matter much.
The key is to not engage in debate and, crucially, do not engage emotionally. Do not let him get to you.
The way I see it fmm has discovered, in presupositionalism, a form of apologetics that is hermetically sealed against any attack (I am mis-quoting KN here, my apologies). It is equivalent to the three-year-old who discovers that they can continue a ‘conversation’ endlessly by repeating the question “Why?”.
And I mean equivalent. The fact that it is ludicrous is a positive for fmm, since he has also discovered that it annoys people. So he’s getting his emotional jollies from other people’s frustration. Don’t get angry. Laugh. You don’t even need to point, just laugh.
Think of it as solipsism, but for people with no imagination.
As stated in the rules. There are amendments spread around several threads and one improvement would be to bring them together in one place, perhaps streamline and clarify them. The aim though has always been clear, to facilitate discussion across a wide range of view.
No major changes can take place without the input of TSZ’s owner. But in the thread entitled TSZ – The Future, there is a discussion allowing everyone to put forward ideas and suggestions on improvements.
Why should he not be subject to the same rules as everyone else here? I could have engaged with phoodoo or J-Mac and reached the same point. The double standard here reduces the quality of the site. I would like to see that reversed.
I left this remainder in not to comment but because it deserves to be read more.
So the “Do Atheists Exist?” thread is no longer an extension of Noyau? You and Neil will enforce the rules against fifthmonarchyman’s rule violating comments?
If not, then you’re making it clear that the written rules are not the real rules and that you do as you like, TSZ’s owner be damned.
Neil,
What was the specific rule violation that caused this comment to be guanoed?
ALurker, to Alan:
Everyone also deserves an answer to this:
Alan, why did you abuse your moderator privileges by closing comments on Moderation Issues (4) and starting this new thread?
And this:
Neil, why haven’t you reversed Alan’s decision, reprimanded him, or — if you think his self-serving action wasn’t an abuse of moderator privileges — explained why to the readers and commenters?
Do your job.
ALurker, to Alan:
He has long since made that clear, over many occasions, as has Neil.
The contempt that they have shown for Lizzie’s stated wishes is remarkable.
It comments on the character of one of our members. Address the post, not the poster.
I didn’t think so, but thank you for responding. May I revise it to remove what I think is the offending portions and post the comment again?
Thanks for responding. I think I can revise the comment to our mutual liking.
Yes, that is allowed.
Yet another moderation abuse. Alan is his own worst enemy.
He and Neil appear determined to make my case for me.
Who’s the judge in this case? Is it Lizzie, perhaps?
Alan,
It couldn’t be more obvious.
That thread solicits suggestions for how to improve TSZ. In such a thread, it is entirely appropriate — necessary, in fact — to talk about what went wrong in the past, and how certain policies might prevent those things from happening in the future or reduce their impact.
You know that, of course.
Your (and Neil’s) decision to guano those comments of mine has nothing to do with TSZ’s interests and nothing to do with promoting Lizzie’s aims. You’re doing it out of naked self-interest, for the same reason you closed comments on the Moderation Issues (4) thread.
It makes my point beautifully.
You are (rightly) ashamed of your past conduct as moderator, particularly in the ALurker affair. You’d like to sweep it under the rug (hence the closure of Mod Issues 4) and prevent it from being mentioned, even in a thread where such mention is entirely appropriate.
You are interfering with a discussion, abusing your powers for your personal benefit. While pretending to be wholly supportive of Lizzie’s aims, you are in fact undermining them and acting contrary to TSZ’s interests. Neil is doing the same.
Well, what are you going to do? I’ve asked Lizzie regarding her plans. She tells me she’ll be back as soon as she has time to spare. I’m sure she will deal with your concerns on her return. Until then we go on as we are.
Alan:
I’ll continue pointing out your abuses, of course. They show how badly we need a way of reining in the power of corrupt moderators.
Who’s “we”, precisely?
Alan,
Even by the bogus standard that you and Neil have advanced, this comment should not have been guanoed:
That comment nowhere mentions a specific instance of moderation. You and Neil both know this, so by your own standard it should not have been guanoed.
It was a moderation mistake. TSZ benefits by having moderation mistakes corrected. Alan and Neil don’t benefit by correcting their moderation mistakes. So what happens? Alan and Neil refuse to correct it. They act on behalf of Alan and Neil, not the readers and commenters of TSZ.
The reason you don’t get the respect you crave? It’s because you’re not worthy of it.
keiths,
Link?
It’s in Guano, of course. Where did you think it would be?
What are you waiting for? Move it back.
keiths,
Done. Apologies. If I moved that comment it was in error.
Neil guanoed it, Alan. You idiotically guanoed the comment in which I pointed out Neil’s screwup. Did you investigate? No, of course not. Moderators gotta have each others’ backs. You rubber-stamped his actions without even investigating.
This, despite your claim that you and Neil are a check on each others’ actions. That’s just another pretty claim, like saying that you support open discussion, while trying to shut it down (the ALurker affair and your TSZ – The Future thread); or like claiming to support Lizzie’s aims while actively undermining them.
Instead of your being a check on Neil, you circled the wagons with him. I, a commenter, had to quote the frikkin’ comment to you to finally get you to reverse his action.
Why should a commenter have to do your job for you, Alan? Why do you reflexively agree with Neil when your job is to actually look at the evidence before rubber-stamping him?
And Neil, why didn’t you fix your mistake when I pointed it out to you? (Rhetorical question.) It was clear enough to Alan that he eventually capitulated and reversed your decision. Why didn’t you do that?
keiths,
More evidence to present to Lizzie. Store it up.
Earlier, I mentioned another abusive moderator action that should be reversed:
Your response?
Alan Fox writes:
Earlier today I asked:
So the “Do Atheists Exist?” thread is no longer an extension of Noyau? You and Neil will enforce the rules against fifthmonarchyman’s rule violating comments?
Are you available to discuss those questions?
FWIW, I think we should have four or five specific “Let’s bully FMM” threads, just like we did when Patrick used his own name.
walto,
You’re accusing ALurker of lying. Can you back up your claim?
Alan,
Your response to this?
The evidence is entirely circumstantial, but there’s a ton of it, and it grows with every word Alurker types. But, as I said before, while it’s amusing and pathetic (even more so than j-mac’s activities, it’s no crime and not even against the rules here, afaik,. So calling it an accusation is a bit of hyperbole, I think. It’s simply belief I can’t seem to put down.
If you have some reason to believe they really aren’t identical–other than the denial–in spite of all the circumstantial evidence that’s growing by the day, I’m willing to be convinced.
Neil,
It’s been two days since Alan closed comments in the Moderation Issues (4) thread. Why are you still refusing to respond to this?
walto,
No, it’s an accurate characterization. You wrote:
And:
ALurker has denied being Patrick. You know this. So yes, you are in fact accusing ALurker of lying.
You just got through scolding Vincent:
That last bit applies to you, too, walto. Why not be transparent in your activities? You’re not actually fooling anyone.
You’ve accused ALurker of lying. Own up to it.
walto,
Your perennial hard-on for Patrick has a lot more to do with that than the evidence does.