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.
I’m not claiming anything. If you feel the need to have another round of your misrepresentations, go ahead. As I said, these days, I’m struggling to give a fuck. Remember to quote yourself for extra points.
This is the kind of nonsensical ad hom that wouldn’t be allowed at a civil discussion site, but, sadly, that kind of juvenile, inane crap has always constituted about 80% of the content of keiths’s posts.
Alan:
Well, if you don’t dispute my characterization — that you’ve been incompetent and dishonest, and that you’ve abused your moderation privileges — then what is there to discuss?
It’s very good news that you’re on your way out.
That would explain it.
walto,
What I wrote is true.
What’s juvenile is your habit of lying about your opponents when they out-argue you or point to a mistake you’ve made. When you do that, you just make things worse for yourself.
Nothing, of course. Unsupported distortions and misrepresentations remain unsupported distortions and allegations.
Alan,
It’s interesting — and quite telling — that you’re afraid to dispute my characterization.
That makes sense. My characterization is correct, and you know it.
ETA: In fact, that’s why you closed comments on the Moderation Issues 4 thread. The evidence was damning, and you wanted to push it out of view.
There’s nothing to refute apart from your misrepresentation, the repetition of the big lie.
Misrepresentation is misrepresentation. You are the master.
Alan,
What misrepresentation? Be specific.
walto
We’ve covered this ground before, and I sympathize.
I think Lizzie wanted a rancour-free discussion site (“minimal tribal rancour”), but I do not think she saw civility as the standard that had to be met. More importantly, there is a big difference between, on the one hand, hoping for and encouraging a given degree of civility and, on the other hand, enforcing some standard for civility. The latter is neither laudable nor practical.
Different commenters here have different modi operandi; if you find a particular chap too obnoxious to bear, then use the ignore button or the scroll wheel. But declaring that you have no interest in being exposed to anything that a particular poster might ever write in the future does go somewhat against the site’s aims. It might even give your target a undeserved sense of worth…
It still is on view.
Ah! Sneaky ETA addition after I’d replied. Bad form, keiths!
Right out of the gate, a lie. I stated clearly my reasoning for opening a new thread. And, as Newton points out, it is still in plain view.
I wasn’t responding to the “declaring” biz, just the point of an ignore function. You seem to agree.
ETA: Incidentally, if you have JSTOR, I recommend Brian Barry’s review of Nozick:
Anarchy, State and Utopia [Book Review]
Brian Barry
Political Theory 3 (3):331-336 (1975)
I think it’s relevant to what might be called the “ignore button approach to moderation” that Patrick was so hot on.
walto,
Yeah, there is one poster who gets the scroll wheel treatment from me. Interestingly, it’s not the absence of content or the misogyny or even the casual racism that tips the scales, it’s the incoherence; for some writers, life is too short to try to parse their meaning…
Of course, were I to identify him, that would be the height of hypocrisy.
Not sure it is a lie,I doubt keiths thinks it is a falsehood. More’s the pity.
Alan:
Heh. Your excuse was a doozy:
Nowhere in that mess is an actual, valid reason for closing comments.
My response, in the Moderation Issues 5 thread:
You closed comments, right in the middle of a vigorous, ongoing discussion, solely for your own benefit. You exposed your true colors in that thread, and you wanted it shut down.
You offered another pitiful excuse about “drawing a line”:
I replied:
You were ashamed of how you had conducted yourself in the ALurker affair, and for good reason. So you attempted to “draw a line” and deflectt everyone’s attention to this side of the line, away from the debacle, and away from your humiliating apology, both of which were on the other side of the line.
It was an abuse of moderator privileges. There was no valid reason to close comments.
Any readers who weren’t around during the ALurker affair might wonder: What motivated Alan to take the extreme step of closing comments in Moderation Issues 4? Was his behavior toward ALurker and others really shameful enough to warrant the closing of comments, in Alan’s eyes?
The answer is yes. Take a look at these three comments and you’ll see exactly why Alan wanted to sweep all of this under the rug.
Alan is his own worst enemy. He craves respect and approval, but then behaves in a way that guarantees his own public disgrace and humiliation. In front of all the readers, which must horrify him.
Who would respect you after that kind of behavior, Alan? And the ALurker affair is just one example from a longstanding pattern.
You’re not worthy of a moderator’s responsibilities. The sooner you leave, the better.
Surely many participants have noticed by now that disagreeing with keiths’ on any subject will at some point get one accused of lying. That’s his go-to.
walto,
Are you telling us that you actually bought Alan’s excuse for closing comments?
You already admitted that Alan lied during the ALurker affair. Why deny it here?
Farce!
I told no lies that I’m aware of regarding “ALurker”. I formed a suspicion based on writing style and vocabulary which prompted me to look at IP addresses. I accepted Patrick’s assurance that it was in fact a coincidence, albeit an amazing one!
ETA, Can one lie without being aware of it?
Well, it’s a misrepresentation at the very least! 🙂
Certainly is, I can view it with one click, same as this thread.
Not per the definition , it must be a known falsehood with the intent to deceive. That is why a parody while false is not a lie
Did you have unaddressed issues?
newton:
So you’re saying that Alan closed comments in order to achieve… nothing?
And that it’s just a coincidence that he had disgraced himself in the thread, and been forced to issue a humiliating apology, just before his decision to close comments?
No need to buy it, it was free.
Don’t forget the lying. We need quotes!
Neither am I, apparently.
keiths, to walto:
newton:
As if it were a normal practice to close the Moderation Issues threads whenever there were no “unaddressed issues”.
Come on, newton.
Alan closed comments right in the middle of a vigorous discussion.
It’s obvious why he did it.
This is false.
keiths, to walto:
Alan:
Follow the link I provided. I described your lies there:
What did I buy? What am I now denying?
Oh, and what the hell are you talking about?
ROFL
IIRC, the “lie” that keiths “caught” Alan in was the statement
A classic case of keiths insisting on projecting his personal, infallible interpretation onto someone else’s words.
This happens a lot.
DNA_Jock,
I described the lies here.
But thank you for mentioning Alan’s “Not implying, just asking” claim. That was also an obvious lie, and one needn’t be infallible to figure that out.
OK, so even walto is unwilling to defend Alan’s bogus excuse for closing comments in Moderation Issues 4.
That leaves newton.
People always talking at him. He don’t hear a word they’re saying. Only the echoes of his mind.
May he rest in peace.
I still have no idea whatsoever why Neil closed comments in the thread that Tom started. No idea at all. Looks like it will remain a perpetual mystery.
What do you think of Alan’s excuse for closing comments in Mod Issues 4, walto?
I think you might be round the bend.
Don’t be shy, walto. Do you believe Alan’s excuse?
Not if my dogs have any say in it.
“One man! Alone! Betrayed by the country he loves! Now its last hope in their final hour of need.”
Come on keiths, we are still discussing it or some variation of your airing of grievances. The only difference is the number of moderation thread.
Do you still buy Alan’s bogus excuse for closing comments, newton?
If so, tell us why.
newton,
The question is about Alan’s excuse for closing comments. Do you buy it? If so, why?
The real reason is obvious. He made an ass of himself in that thread. He couldn’t erase the evidence, so he took the one step available to him as a moderator: he closed comments and opened a new thread, right in the middle of a vigorous, ongoing discussion.
It was an abuse of moderator privileges for his personal benefit.
And a crucial question it is. Wicked important even.
So much hinges on it that I don’t even want to talk about it for fear of nudging anyone.
walto:
Who said it was “crucial”? It’s just one of many examples of Alan’s dishonesty.
And so walto gives a bogus excuse for being afraid to comment on Alan’s bogus excuse.
So many bogus excuses , so little time. Your work is never done.
Such a simple question, yet newton is afraid to answer it: