Moderation Issues (5)

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.

2,097 thoughts on “Moderation Issues (5)

  1. Mung:

    keiths: You guys (including Jock) would love to prove me wrong by showing that Alan’s excuse was actually valid.

    Red herring.

    When I set out to prove keiths wrong (and he’s correct, I do love to do it), I skip the highly subjective arguments about exactly how despicable Alan is — there’s so many of them and so little time — and focus instead on situations where I can unequivocally show that keiths is wrong, like Hempel’s Raven, objective nested hierarchies or the genetics of altruism.
    🙂

  2. DNA_Jock:

    …situations where I can unequivocally show that keiths is wrong, like Hempel’s Raven, objective nested hierarchies or the genetics of altruism.

    My, you have a vivid imagination.

    Meanwhile, it’s amusing to see you fumbling for another bogus excuse for not defending Alan’s bogus excuse.

  3. Neil Rickert: I’ve been watching.

    If gpuccio were posting here, then a lot of comments would have gone to guano.But he is posting at UD, and I am not attempting to follow him there.

    This is the problem with debates between distinct blogs.

    I disagree that the insults are counterproductive, because I don’t see why gpuccio would not get away with murder at UD if he wanted to. Nobody called him on something as obvious as not knowing what the word “arbitrary” means, for example. His using insults as an escape route or not is inconsequential.

    However, I’m stopping with the insults. I’m posting here at TSZ, and maybe I should imagine that the guy was posting here just to try and keep the atmosphere that’s supposed to prevail.

  4. keiths: That’s a familiar walto strategy. Afraid to answer a question? Just mock your opponent and hope no one notices the evasion.

    To mock someone effectively you must listen to their argument and expose the flaws preferably using their own words . To call people liars and cowards is just lazy. Up your game keiths .

  5. newton:

    To call people liars and cowards is just lazy. Up your game keiths.

    Silly newton. As if I haven’t been backing up my claims all along.

    Let’s look at your case, for instance.

    Here’s Alan’s bogus excuse:

    As I believe all outstanding specific queries have now been addressed I’m closing comments in this thread. You will see there is a fresh, new moderation issues page, number 5. My hope is that we can avoid Lizzie having to step straight into an enormous shit-pile of mod issues so to provide a venue for more general ideas regarding how the rules etc could be improved, I (with Neil’s input) will be posting a new OP shortly.

    You started out actually trying to defend that phony excuse:

    keiths:

    Are you telling us that you actually bought Alan’s excuse for closing comments?

    newton:

    Did you have unaddressed issues?

    keiths:

    As if it were a normal practice to close the Moderation Issues threads whenever there were no “unaddressed issues”.

    Come on, newton.

    You tried another tack, arguing that Alan’s action hadn’t changed anything, since you could still view either thread with one click:

    Certainly is, I can view it with one click, same as this thread.

    My response:

    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?

    The very idea is laughable.

    Having failed in your defenses, you then started squirming to avoid my question.

    I pointed out why:

    Both walto and (belatedly) newton seem to realize that they would look foolish defending Alan’s excuse.

    Your rationalization:

    You are mistaking the fear of looking foolish with a lack of interest.

    My response:

    You’ve shown plenty of interest. The squirming only kicked in when you realized your “defense” was going nowhere.

    You guys (including Jock) would love to prove me wrong by showing that Alan’s excuse was actually valid. But it wasn’t valid, and you know that, which is why none of you is willing to defend it. You’d look ridiculous.

    And:

    The real reason that Alan closed comments is obvious: He had just disgraced himself, in the ALurker affair, with a spectacular display of incompetence, dishonesty, and moderator abuses. He couldn’t erase the evidence, so he took the only option available to him as a moderator and closed comments, right in the middle of a vigorous discussion.

    It was a blatant abuse of moderator privileges for his personal benefit.

    Typical Alan Fox behavior, in other words.

    No counterargument from you.

    Are you afraid to defend Alan’s excuse? Yes, obviously. You already failed (twice) and you have no defenses left to offer. Alan’s excuse is phony, you know it, and and you know you’d look ridiculous trying to defend an obvious lie. So instead you offer your own dishonest excuse, claiming “I’m not afraid — I’m just uninterested.”

    Yeah, right.

  6. keiths: You’ve shown plenty of interest. The squirming only kicked in when you realized your “defense” was going nowhere.

    You keep undermining your argument. The conversation from moderation 4 continues to be in view.

    You guys (including Jock) would love to prove me wrong by showing that Alan’s excuse was actually valid. But it wasn’t valid, and you know that, which is why none of you is willing to defend it. You’d look ridiculous.

    Again you are mistaken. I merely have to take Alan at his word, you need to do the heavy lifting. So far your argument is Alan in closing the thread was an attempt to hide something. And Alan is bad. The first is inaccurate. The second ,given your erroneous insight into my motivations, is unpersuasive.

  7. keiths: Silly newton. As if I haven’t been backing up my claims all along.

    Well, no, you haven’t.

    You have been providing links to a statement that Alan made. And you have sometimes quoted part of that statement.

    Your biased subjective interpretation of Alan’s statement does not constitute evidence.

    Well, okay, I’ll correct that. Your biased subjective interpretation of Alan’s statement does not constitute evidence about Alan. It does constitute evidence about you.

  8. Gotta disagree with Jock, Newton, Mung and Neil here.

    Certainly there can be no doubt about keiths’ dispositive demonstration(s) of my own fear, ridiculousness, dishonesty, and wound-upness (if that’s a word). No impartial observer could read a single one of his posts on those subjects and doubt any of those accusations for a second.

    And even now I’m having to repress my desire to mock rather than answer some important question about Alan that has been bothering keiths for months and months.

    So yeah, you guys are just wrong.

  9. As I said:

    That’s a familiar walto strategy. Afraid to answer a question? Just mock your opponent and hope no one notices the evasion.

  10. Neil,

    Your biased subjective interpretation of Alan’s statement does not constitute evidence.

    Then by all means share your unbiased interpretation of Alan’s statement with us, and tell us why you regard it as a valid excuse for closing comments. Here it is again, for your convenience:

    As I believe all outstanding specific queries have now been addressed I’m closing comments in this thread. You will see there is a fresh, new moderation issues page, number 5. My hope is that we can avoid Lizzie having to step straight into an enormous shit-pile of mod issues so to provide a venue for more general ideas regarding how the rules etc could be improved, I (with Neil’s input) will be posting a new OP shortly.

  11. keiths:
    As I said:

    Yes, and I agreed with you! Fear, Wound-upness, Ridiculousness, Dishonesty, and Tendency to Mock: thy name is walto! I don’t see how Jock, Newton and the others can’t see this!!

  12. keiths: Then by all means share your unbiased interpretation of Alan’s statement with us, and tell us why you regard it as a valid excuse for closing comments.

    Nobody (other than me) needs my interpretation of what Alan wrote. People can read it for themselves. They don’t need me to tell them how to interpret it. And they don’t need keiths to tell them how to interpret it.

  13. Heh. Not even the moderators themselves are dumb enough to try to defend Alan’s phony excuse.

  14. newton,

    You’re making a fool of yourself. Please continue.

    You wrote:

    You keep undermining your argument. The conversation from moderation 4 continues to be in view.

    As if nothing short of complete erasure would count as an attempt to sweep the evidence under the rug:

    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.

    [emphasis added]

    Meanwhile, you claim that Alan’s action made no difference since you can still click on the Mod Issues 4 thread. What was the point of closing comments, then? Your argument makes no sense.

    Finally, you give this rationalization for not defending Alan’s excuse:

    Again you are mistaken. I merely have to take Alan at his word, you need to do the heavy lifting.

    So you have no ability to judge the truthfulness of Alan’s statement on your own, and depend on others to do the “heavy lifting” for you? Besides, I have done the heavy lifting for you. I’ve shown that Alan’s excuse makes no sense. None of you — newton, Jock, walto, Neil, or even Alan himself — can defend it.

    Why believe a ridiculous statement that even you are unwilling to defend?

  15. DNA_Jock: …and focus instead on situations where I can unequivocally show that keiths is wrong…

    At least he admits it when he is wrong.

  16. keiths:
    Heh.Not even the moderators themselves are dumb enough to try to defend Alan’s phony excuse.

    Hah. Just let ’em try. We’ll be waiting, I can tell you that!

  17. “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”

    A thread where those participants if they wished could continue that ongoing discussion unimpeded which you have demonstrated as fact. As a participant I feel I suffered no harm. The conversation had reverted to your standard litany of grievance which continues unabated. Your posts are easily accessible if anyone wished to view.

    It was an abuse of moderator privileges for his personal benefit.”

    I see no benefit accruing to Alan, the discussion of his flaws continues , if anything a benefit would be to you , it provided you a new dead horse to flog.

  18. keiths: Meanwhile, you claim that Alan’s action made no difference since you can still click on the Mod Issues 4 thread. What was the point of closing comments, then? Your argument makes no sense.

    Yes ,I had made that argument. Are you now asking me to provide the argument for you? We know it did not hide anything, we know other moderation threads have been closed,we know it did not prevent the discussion from continuing.

    I give up, I accept Alan’s explanation.

  19. Oh, you are in so much trouble now, Newton. You must know you suck to invite that. You’re like “Punish me!!”

  20. walto:
    Oh, you are in so much trouble now, Newton. You must know you suck to invite that. You’re like “Punish me!!”

    Boredom is a dangerous thing.

  21. Mung:

    Alan appears not to be impressed.

    True. “Ashamed” is a better word.

    He got caught lying, and he knows he can’t defend his phony excuse. So he’s laying low and waiting for this to blow over.

    Newton, bless his heart, is keeping the issue in the spotlight. I’m sure Alan is grateful.

  22. newton:

    I give up, I accept Alan’s explanation.

    Of course you do. Unlike a brighter person, who instead of blindly accepting Alan’s excuse, would take the obvious step of checking to see if it actually made sense first.

    We know it did not hide anything…

    He did what he could, as I explained:

    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.

    [emphasis added]

    …we know other moderation threads have been closed…

    For actual, valid reasons. Unlike Mod Issues 4, which was closed for no valid reason whatsoever.

    If you disagree, then tell us: Why, specifically, do you think Alan’s reason was valid?

    You continue squirming to avoid the question. No surprise there.

  23. And you still haven’t answered this:

    Meanwhile, you claim that Alan’s action made no difference since you can still click on the Mod Issues 4 thread. What was the point of closing comments, then? Your argument makes no sense.

  24. keiths: If you disagree, then tell us: Why, specifically, do you think Alan’s reason was valid?

    Because what I said was true. You are burden-shifting, motive-mongering and misrepresenting.

    Yours is the claim.

    Alan is lying.

    Back it up or take it to Noyau.

  25. Alan:

    Back it up or take it to Noyau.

    I’ve backed it up multiple times.

    You, meanwhile, are afraid to defend your own phony excuse for closing comments. That’s revealing, to say the least.

    First you disgraced yourself in the ALurker fiasco through a combination of incompetence, dishonesty, and moderation abuses. Next, you had to issue a humiliating apology for your infantile behavior. As if that weren’t already bad enough, you proceeded to abuse your moderation privileges by closing comments on Mod Issues 4 — and then lied about that, giving an excuse so bogus that even you are unwilling to defend it.

    Now, in desperation, you’re lying again by pretending that I haven’t backed up my claim.

    I’m curious: How much lower can you sink?

  26. keiths: Now, in desperation, you’re lying again by pretending that I haven’t backed up my claim.

    You haven’t established the claim that a statement of mine was a lie. I’m telling you that when I made that statement it was not a lie and it is still not a lie.

    I’m curious how you can claim to know I was lying when I know I was not. How you propose to demonstrate that I have no idea. You keep claiming I’m lying but present no evidence of my state of mind when making the statement.

    keiths: How much lower can you sink?

    There’s a way to go to get down to your level.

  27. Alan,

    If your excuse weren’t bogus, you’d be able to defend it — and you’d do so.

  28. keiths:
    Alan,

    If your excuse weren’t bogus, you’d be able to defend it — and you’d do so.

    How can I prove I wasn’t lying? I know what I said was what I meant. Now you seem to be admitting you can’t demonstrate my statement to be a lie. You now say you can infer it because I don’t defend it. Is telling you straight out I was not lying not defending myself against your baseless allegation?

    If you can’t support your claim that my statement was a lie, I would have thought the decent thing to do was withdraw it

    That’s what I did with Patrick and my suspicion that he was sockpuppeting.

  29. Alan,

    Defending your excuse would be easy if it were valid. You’d simply show that it makes sense.

    It doesn’t make sense, and so you can’t defend it. Neither can anyone else.

    You blew it yet again. You are, by far, your own worst enemy.

  30. Alan,

    Why the squirming? (Rhetorical question.)

    If your excuse wasn’t bogus, you’d be able defend it. You’d show that it makes sense.

    It doesn’t make sense. It’s a phony excuse. You had no valid reason for closing comments.

  31. keiths,

    Cut the innuendo. I’m telling you I didn’t lie. Either demonstrate that I did lie or withdraw your unsupported allegation.

  32. Alan,

    Cut the innuendo.

    What innuendo? I’m saying flat out that your excuse was phony, and that’s why you can’t defend it.

    There was no valid reason for closing comments. Your excuse is bogus.

  33. keiths:
    And you still haven’t answered this:

    Sure I did. Lacking an alternate explanation, I have no reason not to accept Alan’s explanation.

    Care to provide one or do you prefer to just to repeat your question endlessly?

  34. keiths: There was no valid reason for closing comments. Your excuse is bogus.

    Every previous moderation thread has been closed.

  35. keiths:
    Alan,

    What innuendo?

    That I lied.

    I’m saying flat out that your excuse was phony…

    Yes, that’s obvious. Loudly and repetitively, without the least evidence

    …and that’s why you can’t defend it.

    The burden of proof is on you. You claim I lied. You justify that claim if you can. Or withdraw it if you can’t.

    There was no valid reason for closing comments.

    I stated my reason.

    Your excuse is bogus.

    My reason was as stated. I know this.

    Unless you can demonstrate otherwise, you should withdraw your allegation. You demand it of others. Why the hypocrisy?

  36. keiths: Of course you do. Unlike a brighter person, who instead of blindly accepting Alan’s excuse, would take the obvious step of checking to see if it actually made sense first.

    Luckily for me then because I listed the reasons I accept Alan’s explanation.

  37. What’s this, month 47 on why Alan is a liar, a terrible moderator, and an otherwise useless piece of shit? Couldn’t we have another How God is actually a prick! or It’s simply evil for those who disagree with me not to admit they’re wrong! threads? Have those gone out of fashion around here or what??!?

    Bring back those great threads! This place is just sucking so hard now….

  38. Alan,

    Unless you can demonstrate otherwise, you should withdraw your allegation.

    Your excuse was bogus, as I’ve shown. Even you seem to know that, which is why you won’t even try to show that it makes sense.

    If even you won’t defend it, why should anyone (apart from the ever-gullible newton) accept it?

    Keep squirming to avoid my question. It makes my point beautifully.

  39. keiths:
    Alan,

    Your excuse was bogus, as I’ve shown.Even you seem to know that, which is why you won’t even try to show that it makes sense.

    If even you won’t defend it, why should anyone (apart from the ever-gullible newton) accept it?

    Keep squirming to avoid my question.It makes my point beautifully.

    Didn’t lie, hypocrite.

Comments are closed.