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.

799 thoughts on “Moderation Issues (5)

  1. GlenDavidson: It’s all you ever do too, you nazi dog, you just attack people without contributing anything 90% of the time. And the incompetent moderators don’t care about your constant rule violations either.

    This should be a place for discussion, not gutter snipes like J-Mac and Bung just lying about people. I have never understood why rules don’t matter for the biggest assholes around, but they almost never do.

    The moderators here are beyond hopeless. Rule violations don’t matter, as these are constant with fuckwits like J-Mac and Mung, there are just certain words that set them off, not gutter sniping lies from the stupid and the evil.

    I agree with the substance of what you say here. The rules of TSZ are pretty much explicitly set up in such a way that they only work if everyone is committed to liberal virtues of tolerance, civility, and dialogue. There are no mechanisms for sanctioning anyone who isn’t committed to the liberal virtues, which means that there are no penalties for lying or bullshittting.

    But since the rules require everyone to verbally express commitment to the liberal virtues, it’s a rule-violation to say that someone is lying or bullshitting but not a rule-violation to actually lie or bullshit.

    It’s been a fundamental flaw in TSZ from the very beginning: Lizzie set up the site with the expectation that people are better than they really are. I hope that if she returns, we can address this.

  2. Mung: Yeah, well, that’s probably not going to happen

    You don’t dispute the lying dumbass accusation? I guess there is some honesty there then somewhere.

  3. GlenDavidson: It’s all you ever do too, you nazi dog, you just attack people without contributing anything 90% of the time.

    Yes, but that 10% makes up for the other 90%.

    And thanks for playing the nazi card.

  4. Kantian Naturalist: There are no mechanisms for sanctioning anyone who isn’t committed to the liberal virtues, which means that there are no penalties for lying or bullshittting.

    It’s a bit like how Trump got elected. You can’t protect anything from persistent attempts to abuse the system. It’ll just be phoodoo, FMM, J-Mac and Mung left at the end sitting on big pile of their own shit.

  5. OMagain: With you as moderator there would be no posts to moderate.

    So TSZ would actually improve with me as a moderator. Maybe that’s why I am not a moderator.

  6. Mung: And thanks for playing the nazi card.

    What do you expect? You know how you act, you do it on purpose. This is the reaction you are looking for, correct?

    This is how you know you’ve won right? You can put another notch in your trolling post now.

  7. Mung: So TSZ would actually improve with me as a moderator.

    Are you trying to earn another name calling? You would prefer dissenters to be silent and not allow conversations you do not approve of? TZS would be a better place with no conversation at all according to Mung? Fuck you. Crawl back to UD and poke at then why don’t you.

    Mung: Maybe that’s why I am not a moderator.

    No, I’ve already said why you are not a moderator. That power can only be bestowed by existing moderators, I assume. Those moderators know you, they know who you are. And that’s why you are not a moderator.

    And that’s why you are not a moderator. They know you. They know who you are.

  8. Mung: It’s the ID way, isn’t it?

    Is it? You know that what most people here would like is, for example, to have a genuine conversation about Intelligent Design? Of course, they don’t believe it but they might be wrong. And they hope for the opportunity to explain where IDers are in error, of course.

    But look at what happens instead. This. And you love it. You forment it.

  9. I mean, you have trollface as your avatar. It’s not as if you are hiding it. I’ll stop reading this thread, I have you on ignore but it does not work in here….

  10. OMagain: You don’t dispute the lying dumbass accusation?

    According to Glen it’s all I ever do. What do you want me to do, ask him for evidence to back up his claims? LMAO

  11. walto: I just put up an OP, and would be grateful if one of the mods could stick a hyperlink where I have put a url.

    Thanks, guys!

  12. Kantian Naturalist: But since the rules require everyone to verbally express commitment to the liberal virtues, it’s a rule-violation to say that someone is lying or bullshitting but not a rule-violation to actually lie or bullshit.

    One can say that what someone else has stated is false without calling them a liar, and that does not break the rules. But Glen and OMagain want to be able to call people liars. Their morals demand it.

    I think saying something is bullshit is also allowed, although I did say one time that someone was full of shit and that got sent to Guano because Alan thought it was equivalent to saying they were lying.

  13. Mung: One can say that what someone else has stated is false without calling them a liar, and that does not break the rules. But Glen and OMagain want to be able to call people liars.

    Liar. I didn’t call J-Mac a liar, I wrote that his libels were “lies.” Of course, here I can you evil liars “liars,” but elsewhere a bunch of egregious lies by J-Mac and Bunghole aren’t actually ruled out from being called “lies,” except by the moderators who don’t care about the rules that J-Mac and Mung routinely violate.

    Their morals demand it.

    It’s a truth thing. You’d never understand it.

    Beyond that, we’d like to do more than trade insults with dumbfucks like you routine rule-violators. You’re too stupid for a discussion of evidence, like J-Mac, but that’s no excuse for your endless violations about attacking the individual. The only excuse for that is that the moderators don’t care about the rules or keeping the shit down to a tolerable level.

    Glen Davidson

  14. OMagain: You know that what most people here would like is, for example, to have a genuine conversation about Intelligent Design? Of course, they don’t believe it but they might be wrong. And they hope for the opportunity to explain where IDers are in error, of course.

    I’ll believe it when I see it.

  15. Mung: GlenDavidson: While you just continue to lie.

    It’s the ID way, isn’t it?

    It’s your way, liar.

    ID’s stupid, it doesn’t always lie. But such bullshit comports well with your ignorance, stupidity, and general dishonesty.

    Glen Davidson

  16. GlenDavidson: Liar. I didn’t call J-Mac a liar, I wrote that his libels were “lies.”

    Yet you just did call me a liar. Your actions contradict your words.

    It’s a truth thing. You’d never understand it.

    I understand it perfectly. You want a moral universe. The thing about TSZ is that it’s not supposed to be a place where people are judged morally. That would be too much like UD. You need to go back to UD.

  17. GlenDavidson: ID’s stupid, it doesn’t always lie.

    “ID” can’t be stupid and “ID” can’t lie. You at least get it right when you attribute stupidity and lying to persons.

    Are you retracting your claim that just telling lies about people is the ID way?

    It’s a truth thing.

  18. Mung: GlenDavidson: Liar. I didn’t call J-Mac a liar, I wrote that his libels were “lies.”

    Yet you just did call me a liar. Your actions contradict your words.

    Well, dumbass, did you realize that the rules are different in here, and that there’s no question about “liar” being allowed here? I referred to that fact, and you just dishonestly ignored that crucial point.

    I know you don’t understand much, but that shouldn’t really be difficult to figure out.

    Glen Davidson

  19. Mung: “ID” can’t be stupid and “ID” can’t lie. You at least get it right when you attribute stupidity and lying to persons.

    Oh God, what a stupidly pedantic point, the kind that children and idiots think constitutes a “gotcha.”

    When a judge tells you that “the law demands” this or that, why don’t you try out that puerile line of “argumentation?” You’ll show that judge!

    Glen Davidson

  20. GlenDavidson: Oh God, what a stupidly pedantic point, the kind that children and idiots think constitutes a “gotcha.”

    Why not rewrite what you wrote originally to make plain what your intent was so that your claim can be discussed?

    Did you mean that it’s stupid to believe in ID, so that people who do believe in ID are stupid people? But they don’t always lie. Yet you claim you want to discuss ID with these stupid people who lie, but not always.

    GlenDavidson: Well, dumbass, did you realize that the rules are different in here, and that there’s no question about “liar” being allowed here? I referred to that fact, and you just dishonestly ignored that crucial point.

    I know you don’t understand much, but that shouldn’t really be difficult to figure out.

    No Glen, you’ve got it wrong. The point is that you say here in this thread what you would like to say in the other threads, where the rules are not so relaxed, and that therefore it is in fact true that you want to be able to call people liars.

    And you’ve as much as admitted it. So no, I was not lying, as you claimed. Your claim was false.

    Further, in response to my statement that you want to be allowed to call people liars your defense was that you did not actually call J-Mac a liar. I get the distinct feeling that I’d fare far better in a court of law than you.

    If you don’t want to be allowed to call people liars why are you complaining that you are not allowed to do so?

  21. Mung: No Glen, you’ve got it wrong. The point is that you say here in this thread what you would like to say in the other threads, where the rules are not so relaxed, and that therefore it is in fact true that you want to be able to call people liars.

    You’re so stupid. I really want lying fuckers like you to have the rules enforced on them so that you don’t simply attack people, like you do with your copious lies. I don’t want to deal with your assholery, in fact, and I really don’t want to call you anything, because you’re too ignorant to make any reasonable point.

    And you’ve as much as admitted it. So no, I was not lying, as you claimed. Your claim was false.

    You don’t even begin to deal with the issue, you’d rather turn this into some mindless stupidity about name-calling. Why the fuck would I want to call you a liar, when I don’t even want to deal with you, ignorant troll that you are? And I wasn’t complaining that I couldn’t call J-Mac a liar (that’s an obvious fact, even if he’s dumb enough to believe it, since he really has no concern about establishing the truth of the falsehoods he tells), but I simply called his lies “lies” because that’s about all the response that can reasonably be made. He’s a libelous jerk, like you.

    Further, in response to my statement that you want to be allowed to call people liars your defense was that you did not actually call J-Mac a liar. I get the distinct feeling that I’d fare far better in a court of law thaMn you.

    Let the stupid be stupid still.

    If you don’t want to be allowed to call people liars why are you complaining that you are not allowed to do so?

    I'm not, dumbfuck liar. I was complaining especially that J-Mac violates the rules enormously, by attacking the person and by blatantly and without cause claiming that people aren't arguing in good faith. That he can violate the rules, and I can't even call what are only lies the "lies" that they in fact are is the problem.

    Your dishonesty is your overriding personality trait.

    Glen Davidson

  22. So draft rules:
    Assume all other posters are posting in good faith.
    For example, do not accuse other posters of being deliberately misleading

    Glen, why do you think that calling what someone else writes “lies” does not violate this rule? It certainly appears to be a direct violation and the mods appear to agree with me. I can’t even get away with saying that someone is full of shit. You’re not special in this regard.

  23. GlenDavidson: I’m not, dumbfuck liar. I was complaining especially that J-Mac violates the rules enormously, by attacking the person and by blatantly and without cause claiming that people aren’t arguing in good faith. That he can violate the rules, and I can’t even call what are only lies the “lies” that they in fact are is the problem.

    I don’t think you are being deliberately misleading, but you did just contradict yourself again. You are in fact complaining that you can’t call J-Mac a liar and get away with it. And you admit it.

    Why don’t go to UD where someone of your obvious high moral character will fit right in?

  24. Mung: Why don’t go to UD where someone of your obvious high moral character will fit right in?

    Trouble in paradise?

  25. newton: Trouble in paradise?

    LoL.

    I think Glen’s moral standards are too high for TSZ. Expectation. Disappointment.

    How long has it taken him to realize the site isn’t what Elizabeth was hoping for and how is it that he is not part of the problem?

  26. Mung: Glen, why do you think that calling what someone else writes “lies” does not violate this rule?

    I’ll just add that this was precisely the point for one of the posts that I recently guanoed. If it had said that the statements were false, I would not have moved it to guano. But it said that the statements were lies, which implied intention.

  27. Mung: LoL.

    I think Glen’s moral standards are too high for TSZ. Expectation. Disappointment.

    How long has it taken him to realize the site isn’t what Elizabeth was hoping for and how is it that he is not part of the problem?

    What problem? Some people want to complain about moderation, some people want to claim about posters, some people try to follow the “rules”.Obviously EL was cognizant of that since there are dedicated guano and moderation threads. What there isn’t is the disappearance of posts or arbitrary bannings.

  28. Mung: LoL.

    How long has it taken him to realize the site isn’t what Elizabeth was hoping for and how is it that he is not part of the problem?

    Wow. Mung sweeps the podium in the Self-Unaware Olympics.

  29. Mung: Are those things evil?

    Ask Elizabeth. I expect she saw those things as antithetical to a free exchange of ideas that was her goal for the site.

  30. Acartia:

    Group hug?

    Mung:

    Might ruin my image of being a homophobic nazi dog.

    Not to worry. You can always fall back on your reputation as a dim and dishonest troll.

  31. keiths: Not to worry. You can always fall back on your reputation as a dim and dishonest troll.

    You’re willing to give that back to me after having taken over it yourself? How kind.

  32. Dear Mods,

    Glen repeatedly misrepresents the arguments of the people he disagrees with. Why aren’t you doing something about that!

    *whine*

  33. Is there a special reason why my OP has been pending publishing approval for over 2 weeks now? I thought there were 5 admins now…
    Do admins need a special permission from other (unhappy about my OPs) members of TSZ to publish them?

    If this pace of publishing continues, maybe we should appoint more admins? Then all regular participants of TSZ will also become admins… with the exception of me and Robert Byers…
    Then, and only then, the unhappy ones can self regulate and by November, when Elizabeth retires, TSZ will be fully blossoming and fulfilling its original purpose: the supporting of preconceived ideas ONLY with the appropriate censorship…

  34. J-Mac: Is there a special reason why my OP has been pending publishing approval for over 2 weeks now?

    Perhaps if you asked? I normally don’t go looking for pending posts, unless I see a request.

  35. Neil Rickert: Perhaps if you asked?I normally don’t go looking for pending posts, unless I see a request.

    Neil,
    Are you telling me that out of 5 current admins nobody has the responsibility to check for pending OPs awaiting approval at least once every 2 weeks?
    I hate to say it Neil but I begin to believe that keiths’ complaining about the moderates at TSZ has more than some merit. I don’t support keiths’ most views but I don’t view him as stupid. He is not. Moreover, why should he complain about my publishing rights suspension, if he hates my guts because he doesn’t agree with my views on anything? It doesn’t even fit any of the narcissistic personality traits….

  36. Neil,

    Why should J-Mac have to remind you to check the pending queue? You and Alan were the dipshits who imposed the censorship scheme in the first place, despite the fact that J-Mac had violated no rules.

    It’s bad enough that you haven’t acknowledged or fixed your mistake. (You and Alan are notorious for that.) Why are you asking J-Mac to do your job for you, when you were the ones who created the extra work in the first place?

Leave a Reply