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. There are a lot of things that have made me stop participating at this site. Sure, the Mods don’t ban almost anyone. Yet ‘they’ Guano – remove into some kind of shame pile – threads that actually start with such a tone & approach as this:

    “Hi Folks,
    Not much time these days for such writing. Thanks for the few comments that have been on-topic & constructive, as well as the humour.”

    To have stuff on this site like this is actually too nice for skeptics.

    The alternative, would be a private note from a moderator, after actually CONSULTING with the other Moderators in a private 3-way, that leads to a 3-0 or 2-1 result, that says something like the following: “Gregory, though we can see some value & constructive features in your post, it is that ONE sentence that bothers us. Could you please remove it or edit it? If so, we’ll allow the ENTIRE REMAINING POST to stay as well. Thanks for understanding that we’re ‘really’ trying to moderate this godforsaken site by offering constructive solutions, not just flinging away responsibility as nihilists might prefer. And since we are not nihilists…”

    Are DNA_Jock, Neil Rickert & Vincent J. Torley capable of such cooperation & collaboration or is that the actual missing magic here? No tribunal makes a chaos of sloppy ‘skepticism’ without any clear boundaries.

    Simply put, I’m not going to waste my time here if you can’t explain why you dump entire posts from threads because you don’t like the way you think they smell. That is my line, Mods. You decide if you’re worth it.

  2. walto: Vince is doing a bang-up job, btw.

    In case this was directed at me, let me clear one thing up, again. What most of the folks who participate think about what I think about ‘Vince’ is very likely quite wrong.

    In fact, I *DO* trust that Vince would, does and *WILL* do a “bang-up” job. In fact, he’ll do it better than almost anyone here. I’m just surprised he would agree to do it because means a sink on his time. And time is a limited commodity.

    Do you understand why I trust Vince as a Moderator, walto?

  3. Gregory: Do you understand why I trust Vince as a Moderator, walto?

    Probably the same reason I trust Vincent. He’s a decent guy.

  4. Gregory: I’m just surprised he would agree to do it because means a sink on his time.

    He made this clear when offering his services. Lizzie’s grateful for any time he can spare.

  5. Alan Fox,

    “Probably the same reason I trust Vincent. He’s a decent guy.”

    Dig a little deeper champ, I really do believe it is inside you to…

  6. Alan Fox,

    “when offering his services”

    Where is this to be found please?

    Yes, of course any ‘normal’ human being, like Vincent is, and the majority who are ‘religiously musical’ in a positive sense of the term, would limit their time at a religiously highly-dissonant site like this.

  7. Gregory:
    Alan Fox,

    “when offering his services”

    Where is this to be found please?

    In my Private Messages inbox. Why do you ask?

    Yes, of course any ‘normal’ human being, like Vincent is, and the majority who are ‘religiously musical’ in a positive sense of the term, would limit their time at a religiously highly-dissonant site like this.

    I’m not your enemy.

  8. Alan Fox,

    Yeah, but that’s about as deep as you go. And I’m not willing to stop anywhere near there. So, apparently you have to stay behind. It’s not enough for me or most of the normal, everyday, regular-functioning people I know. I trust Vince for reasons you simply do not understand. Nuf said. Maybe pray about it that you may become aware?

    But do you know, human beings as the prayer animals? Perhaps it just smells funny to you that normal, regular, sane, balanced, fully functioning citizens of the country you live in, who are not fanatics (except recently when they got a trophy), actually do dedicate their life to a prayerful life?

  9. Gregory,

    I have no issue with personal religious belief. I just don’t happen to share it. It’s religious authority that’s dangerous.

  10. Alan Fox,

    Alan Fox: In my Private Messages inbox. Why do you ask?

    I’m not your enemy.

    You’re certainly my opponent. I loathe the ideology and worldview you hold as highly damaging and of course, unnecessary. Better *IS* available than this site or ‘skepticism’, even if not the ‘radical’ variety on display within & coming out of the mouths of some here.

    I ask because this move by Vincent does carry some significance … if you’re looking at it with the right eyes. In 10 years, nobody will be looking for threads involving ‘Alan Fox’ with his agnostic, playful anti-IDism, anti-creationism and anti-religion views. They are fine enough for what they are, but they don’t inspire me, at least, and I’m quite sure most others would agree. That Vincent *privately requested* to Alan Fox that he would be willing to volunteer his time to TSZ in my view does matter.

    There is no doubt to me that Vincent actually *DOES* have significant potential bubbling under the surface. It is raw, rough, verbiose, curiously ortho-seeking yet strangely mixed in a combination that strikes as a hard to make sense of.

    My situation is rather different than Vincent’s. I do hope he’ll be wise with his time here, which again I repeat I believe will largely be a waste of time at TSZ. When Lizzie returns, he’ll probably understand that better. She has no TELOS in her heart anymore; lost it in cognitive gymnastics.

    My view is simply that definitely ‘decent’ Vincent would better serve his vocation elsewhere. Peaceful Science is just one place & I have recommended others to him over the years. But Japan pays well to teach English, so that might just not be on his future family priority & career agenda. Maybe for Vincent J. Torley, TSZ really is “as good as it gets”?

  11. Gregory:
    Alan Fox,

    You’re certainly my opponent.

    Don’t think so.

    I loathe the ideology and worldview you hold as highly damaging and of course, unnecessary..

    I advocate true secularism, individual freedom to follow one’s conscience to the extent that it doesn’t harm others.

    Better *IS* available than this site or ‘skepticism’, even if not the ‘radical’ variety on display within & coming out of the mouths of some here.

    I confess I don’t really undestand this statement.

    I ask because this move by Vincent does carry some significance … if you’re looking at it with the right eyes. In 10 years, nobody will be looking for threads involving ‘Alan Fox’ with his agnostic, playful anti-IDism, anti-creationism and anti-religion views. They are fine enough for what they are, but they don’t inspire me, at least, and I’m quite sure most others would agree. That Vincent *privately requested* to Alan Fox that he would be willing to volunteer his time to TSZ in my view does matter.

    I’m not anti-religion. I’m against authoritarianism and totalitarianism.

    There is no doubt to me that Vincent actually *DOES* have significant potential bubbling under the surface. It is raw, rough, verbiose, curiously ortho-seeking yet strangely mixed in a combination that strikes as a hard to make sense of.

    Well you said it. 🙂

    My situation is rather different than Vincent’s. I do hope he’ll be wise with his time here, which again I repeat I believe will largely be a waste of time at TSZ. When Lizzie returns, he’ll probably understand that better. She has no TELOS in her heart anymore; lost it in cognitive gymnastics.

    It’s not sinister or complicated. I’d had enough of moderating and asked for volunteers. Vincent was one of the (very) few who offered. And there’s no contract. We’re grateful for any input he has time for.

    My view is simply that definitely ‘decent’ Vincent would better serve his vocation elsewhere. Peaceful Science is just one place & I have recommended others to him over the years. But Japan pays well to teach English, so that might just not be on his future family priority & career agenda. Maybe for Vincent J. Torley, TSZ really is “as good as it gets”?

    I’m sure Vincent will consider your advice.

  12. I’m gone. Not more after this for ‘skeptics’ today, who are way down the priority list, particularly the anti-theists and anti-religious at this site. No, you are simply missing a fuller humanity & that is obvious almost everywhere around the world.

    It is obvious to the rest of us already. Maybe it will become obvious to you ‘skeptics’ (atheists & agnostics) once you stick your minds out & risk some existential questioning about yourself and human life in a more inspiring and meaning-searching way.

    “It’s religious authority that’s dangerous”

    1st, your an exile living in France, from what I remember. Of course these ‘Voltairesque’ views are just swarm. Religion is not your enemy. 2nd, sure maybe a few religious leaders are ‘dangerous’ in their deviations from their host institution’s teachings. My sociological view on this 100% sociological issue is that ‘dangerous clergy’ exist currently at a rate that is highly likely to be considerably less than Scouts Leaders, and also less than Public School Teachers & even Admins by far. And lets get real, what goes on coming from ‘authority’ at your average McDonalds isn’t exactly stellar. Your sociology seems amiss.

    You & others here echo a bias that demonstrates an incomplete picture of religion. (And then there’s that foul apostate here seemingly intent to ruin any sense of decency, even among skeptics.) What would it take to admit that at least *SOME* religious authorities might be the opposite of dangerous? If you dare, 1) who are those ‘good religious authorities,’ and 2) why do some people consider ‘religious authorities’ as only “dangerous”? Last comment today.

  13. Alan Fox: He made this clear when offering his services. Lizzie’s grateful for any time he can spare.

    Right now he’s tied with that other mod failure Lizzie tried.

  14. Gregory,
    You asked for constructive ‘solutions’, so here goes.
    Your OP is pretty much entirely an attack on Dr. Swamidass, rather than his ideas. Your guano’ed comment is entirely attacking the poster(s), rather than ideas. Along with your fetish about capitalization, you have a fetish about people, as opposed to the ideas that they promulgate. Personally, this strikes me as impoverished sociology.
    You recognize that Vincent (but not other moderators, huh?) may suffer time constraints that limit participation, while simultaneously asking that all three of us get together to copy-edit your insult-laden comments as a committee, rather than guano them. Inconsistent much?
    You have made your disdain for this forum apparent. Please feel free to leave. Although I must admit that I have always enjoyed your contributions here.

  15. Gregory:
    I’m gone. Not more after this for ‘skeptics’ today, who are way down the priority list, particularly the anti-theists and anti-religious at this site. No, you are simply missing a fuller humanity & that is obvious almost everywhere around the world.

    I’m pretty content,on the whole. It’s possible I’m missing something but It’s my choice whether I start seeking it.

    It is obvious to the rest of us already. Maybe it will become obvious to you ‘skeptics’ (atheists & agnostics) once you stick your minds out & risk some existential questioning about yourself and human life in a more inspiring and meaning-searching way.

    I read this as an emotional appeal. Sure many religions have honed this emotional approach over millenia. But I’m suspicious it has always been about control.

    1st, your an exile living in France, from what I remember.

    What calumny! 🙂 I left voluntarily, I’ll have you know!

    Of course these ‘Voltairesque’ views are just swarm. Religion is not your enemy. 2nd, sure maybe a few religious leaders are ‘dangerous’ in their deviations from their host institution’s teachings. My sociological view on this 100% sociological issue is that ‘dangerous clergy’ exist currently at a rate that is highly likely to be considerably less than Scouts Leaders, and also less than Public School Teachers & even Admins by far. And lets get real, what goes on coming from ‘authority’ at your average McDonalds isn’t exactly stellar. Your sociology seems amiss.

    You’re not unique in dismissing the proles or deplorables. But I find it rather condescending.

    You & others here echo a bias that demonstrates an incomplete picture of religion. (And then there’s that foul apostate here seemingly intent to ruin any sense of decency, even among skeptics.) What would it take to admit that at least *SOME* religious authorities might be the opposite of dangerous? If you dare, 1) who are those ‘good religious authorities,’ and 2) why do some people consider ‘religious authorities’ as only “dangerous”? Last comment today.

    Personally, I’m an apatheist. Other contributors views differ. Freedom of expression or authority? I pick freedom.

  16. When you look back over the sleaziness, abuses, and general incompetence of Alan’s tenure, Vincent’s approach of simply not moderating at all looks pretty damn good.

    Plus — and this will make Gregory happy — it requires no time investment.

  17. Gregory: In case this was directed at me, let me clear one thing up, again. What most of the folks who participate think about what I think about ‘Vince’ is very likely quite wrong.

    In fact, I *DO* trust that Vince would, does and *WILL* do a “bang-up” job. In fact, he’ll do it better than almost anyone here. I’m just surprised he would agree to do it because means a sink on his time. And time is a limited commodity.

    Do you understand why I trust Vince as a Moderator, walto?

    I do, and I was very much in favor of having him as a mod, especially after JohnnyB agreed and then farted out.

    I was just tweaking him for–as far as I can tell–not actually doing a single thing since he’s started. There have been a TON of guano-worthy comments (including my own) since that time, and I haven’t seen hide nor hair of Vince.

    BTW, for whatever it’s worth, based on the commonly-used principle that if there’s other decent, substantive stuff in a post, it shouldn’t be guanoed, I think think yours could have been kept. I mean, there’s some garbage in there, for sure, but there are a lot of posts that are entirely garbage that do not end up in guano. I know that mung and FMM have complained that this double standard has hurt the theists here, and while I think that has probably gotten somewhat better with patrick’s departure, that perception may still be accurate to some extent. Ditching your post seems to me to give some credence to it, in any case.

    Anyhow, based on what I ‘ve seen so far, I wouldn’t expect much from Vince.

  18. walto,

    Given whats gone on since Alan’s departure as a moderator putting Gregory’s post in guano is absurd. I think even keiths would agree.

  19. Alan:

    Twat!

    Someone must have asked Alan to summarize his character in a single word. The exclamation point is a nice touch.

  20. keiths:

    When you look back over the sleaziness, abuses, and general incompetence of Alan’s tenure, Vincent’s approach of simply not moderating at all looks pretty damn good.

    Alan:

    Twat!

    Alan,

    You left in disgrace — a disgrace which was only exacerbated by your execrable behavior during the ALurker affair.

    TSZ has functioned far more smoothly since your departure, and the rate of moderation fuckups has dropped dramatically, though Neil still manages to blow it often enough.

    We are fortunate to be rid of you.

  21. keiths,

    Alan,

    You left in disgrace — a disgrace which was only exacerbated by your execrable behavior during the ALurker affair.

    TSZ has functioned far more smoothly since your departure, and the rate of moderation fuckups has dropped dramatically, though Neil still manages to blow it often enough.

    We are fortunate to be rid of you.

    What was your intent in posting this rant?

  22. Bill,

    It exposes Alan’s hypocrisy, and that’s a good thing.

    It’s the same reason people speak out against Donald Trump’s hypocrisy, for example.

  23. keiths,

    It exposes Alan’s hypocrisy, and that’s a good thing.

    At this point he is no longer a moderator. What does exposing his hypocrisy accomplish now except to make him feel lousy.

  24. colewd,

    At this point he is no longer a moderator. What does exposing his hypocrisy accomplish now except to make him feel lousy.

    Hypocrisy in commenting matters too, Bill. People usually find it painful when their hypocrisy is pointed out, and that’s good. It discourages them from being hypocritical in the future.

  25. keiths,

    You are trying to punish him for past sins. Why don’t you see if the pain you inflicted in the past worked?

    Are you simply angry with him for guanoing your posts?

  26. colewd:
    keiths,

    You are trying to punish him for past sins.Why don’t you see if the pain you inflicted in the past worked?

    Are you simply angry with him for guanoing your posts?

    You don’t get narcissists clowed. Imagine a dictator who what’s to be respected even when he is wrong…or especially when he is wrong… Can you think of any recent dictators other than Trump or Putin?

  27. keiths:
    colewd,

    Hypocrisy in commenting matters too, Bill.People usually find it painful when their hypocrisy is pointed out, and that’s good.It discourages them from being hypocritical in the future.

    You are talking about yourself, keiths… You just can’t see it…

  28. colewd:

    You are trying to punish him for past sins.

    I am pointing out his current hypocrisy. For Alan to label an honest person a “twat”, when his own behavior has been absolutely atrocious, is the height of hypocrisy.

    Again, it’s usually painful to people when their hypocrisy is pointed out. That’s good, because we want to discourage hypocrisy.

  29. Alan Fox:
    Gregory,

    I have no issue with personal religious belief. I just don’t happento share it. It’s religious authority that’s dangerous.

    I don’t think I ever agreed with you on much. I do on this one…

    BTW: Do you find the French hooligans (football/soccer) the same as English?

  30. keiths: . For Alan to label an honest person a “twat”,

    I think you need a psychiatrist, keiths and not just anyone for $80 a pop. You need a team… remember? I’ve suggested this to you before…

  31. keiths: It discourages them from being hypocritical in the future.

    Doesn’t seem to be working in your case.

    keiths: we want to discourage hypocrisy.

    Then stop being a hypocrite.

  32. Mung: Doesn’t seem to be working in your case.

    Then stop being a hypocrite.

    He doesn’t get it, Mung! Do you have any idea why?

  33. Have the moderators considered the possibility that the refusal to remove the “penguin sighted” thread from the front page is stifling new content?

  34. Mung:
    Have the moderators considered the possibility that the refusal to remove the “penguin sighted” thread from the front page is stifling new content?

    Obviously, the most appropriate moderator to unpin that thread, is Elizabeth. So I shall be leaving it to her.

  35. Neil:

    Obviously, the most appropriate moderator to unpin that thread, is Elizabeth. So I shall be leaving it to her.

    Um, no. The most appropriate moderators to unpin that thread are the ones who are actually here and available to unpin it, not one who is absent.

    Christ, Neil.

    You’re the same dipshit who happily guanoes comments in Lizzie’s absence — including non-rule-violating ones — yet is afraid to unpin a thread that’s been featured for three months.

  36. I think the point is that it irritates us. Two birds with one stone. 🙂

    ETA: If only Vincent was here to help.

  37. Mung,

    I think the point is that it irritates us. Two birds with one stone. 🙂

    I think he’s afraid Lizzie will spank him.

    That same wimpiness was behind his spineless capitulations to walto and Alan.

  38. Corneel, to Mung:

    but but but it has your picture on it.

    And it calls him a “chicken”. Maybe that’s what’s bothering him about it.

  39. Neil Rickert: Obviously, the most appropriate moderator to unpin that thread, is Elizabeth. So I shall be leaving it to her.

    Let’s grant that Elizabeth is the most appropriate moderator to unpin that thread.

    Even if Elizabeth is the most appropriate moderator to unpin that thread, it doesn’t follow that she is the only appropriate moderator to unpin that thread or that it would be inappropriate for some other moderator to unpin that thread.

    Do the mods really think Elizabeth intended for that post to remain FEATURED until she returned?

  40. Mung,

    Let’s grant that Elizabeth is the most appropriate moderator to unpin that thread.

    Even if Elizabeth is the most appropriate moderator to unpin that thread, it doesn’t follow that she is the only appropriate moderator to unpin that thread or that it would be inappropriate for some other moderator to unpin that thread.

    Right. Neil, do you really not grasp this?

  41. “Do the mods really think Elizabeth intended for that post to remain FEATURED until she returned?” – Mung

    Nah, they’re not interested in erecting idols. 😉

    Torley now in my view actually *isn’t* a Moderator at TSZ; he just asked, i.e. requested, if he could be one. Was a total wuss, perfect for Swamidass’s new crew!

    At least they asked JohnnyB to moderate this nest of skeptics. He wisely did nothing either. What’s to gain here? Time costs too much to lose.

Comments are closed.