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.
phoodoo:
Mung:
Me too. 🙂
One of the things I like about TSZ, and its ethos of resistance to censorship (though that is being battered these days by the current crop of moderators), is that by giving certain people a voice — even when those people don’t always have the most enlightening or worthwhile things to say — you open yourself to hearing the good, or valuable, or funny things they say when they do say them, and are not being censored.
I disagree with much of what phoodoo says, but he’s made me smile twice today — once with the crayon/cadaver dog comment above, and once with his characterization of the current moderation situation:
Vive open discussion! Down with censorship!
keiths,
Aye, you’re a hearty, happy band you are!
Neil has guanoed comments out of Moderation Issues again, something he is not permitted to do. And this time without even giving notice, much less linking to them.
Here they are.
I know you’re desperate to keep the evidence out of view, but guanoing those comments is completely out of line, Neil. You are just disgracing yourself further by continuing to abuse your moderation privileges.
DNA_Jock,
For someone who tries (not very successfully) to project an aura of aplomb, you are remarkably subservient to Neil.
You were afraid to challenge Neil over the J-Mac censorship scheme. You were afraid to bypass Neil and unpin Lizzie’s featured post, despite the fact that it had been up for three months. Now you are failing to challenge another censorship scheme of his, and you are afraid to intervene when Neil goes rogue and interferes with the posting of comments in the Moderation Issues thread — a huge abuse.
Shades of Trump and Putin here. Does Neil have some dirt on you?
Why the weakness? Stand up for yourself and do your job, even if Neil tells you not to.
Neil Rickert,
I think your measures are warranted and it is appropriate to give our resident 6 year old a timeout.
Not my point but I will say in your case if it doesn’t deter you ,it was not punitive enough.
Maybe he is doing his job, even if keiths tells him not to.
In a perfect world, but we live in this one there is no option to change the rules until Lizzie come back.which leaves the mods with the choice letting keiths use the site as a venue for his pissing contest or do the least harm to the rules but still deter keiths.
Seems to me they split the baby.
I choose same, no moderation is untenable.
Neil,
No, because he’s not doing his job when he rubberstamps every harebrained action you take, including interfering with the posting of moderation-related comments in the Moderation Issues thread. That’s exactly what the Moderation Issues thread was created for, and your interference with that is basically a “fuck you” to Lizzie.
You are screwing up badly, and that’s on you. But by spinelessly assenting, Jock is also failing to do his job.
Not unless you assume they are being unfair in which case you should test your assumption to know whether it is true. No assumption , no need.
By the way, most of guano is boring not filthy
How much you willing to pay?
peace
newton,
It’s an article of faith for you that “no moderation is untenable”, but it simply isn’t true.
The evidence says otherwise, and that’s not at all surprising when you think it through. You even inadvertently supported that point yourself, when you argued that Guano was ineffective as a deterrent, except for the few people who
a) would respond in a destructive way to a guanoed comment, but
b) happen not to see the comment because they can’t be arsed to click on a link to it.
That tiny deterrent effect — if it even exists — is not an essential thing without which TSZ becomes “untenable”.
I have two emails in my mailbox, received today from Lizzie. She has been part of the discussion on administrator action.
I’ve just suspended the account of Keiths for a minimum of thirty days.
As Keiths will be unable to access the PM system, he can contact me via email if he wishes to discuss this.
alanfox@free.fr
Dr Liddle has been party to discussions among admins and I quote:
Whilst it wouldn’t be TSZ without some lively discussion on this, can we please avoid gloating or talking to empty chairs.
Neil,
So? I’m willing to bet that neither of those emails asks you to prevent members from posting about moderation issues in the Moderation Issues thread.
That is an abuse, plain and simple.
On what basis? Why resort to censorship?
Does Lizzie actually know that you are trying to suspend my account and prevent me from commenting? I’d be very surprised and disappointed if she were party to a brazen act like that.
Alan, quoting Lizzie:
If by ‘posting’ Lizzie means OPs, then the obvious interpretation would be that rule-violating OPs cannot be posted, while rule-conforming OPs can. A thirty-day suspension would make no sense, since that would prevent me from posting rule-conforming OPs. Lizzie has stated her vehement opposition to censorship, and a thirty-day suspension of all OP posting privileges, regardless of content, would amount to censorship, plain and simple. So I find it hard to believe that Lizzie would be on board with Alan’s attempted suspension.
(And I’m not even addressing the obvious point that Alan, Neil and Jock are the last people we’d want judging the suitability of OPs at TSZ.)
If on the other hand Lizzie was talking about commenting as well as OPs, then much the same reasoning applies. Lizzie has stated that she does not want to control what people write, and that guanoing is not to be seen as reprimand or punishment. Given that, there is no justification for a thirty-day suspension, since that would be even worse than guanoing and would amount to an extreme attempt to control and suppress what a commenter writes.
So Alan, the supposedly retired moderator, is overreaching yet again with an extreme and poorly thought-out censorship plan.
Things haven’t gone well for you at TSZ, Alan, and you certainly aren’t helping matters with behavior like this.
There’s also the question of how much Lizzie actually knows about what’s been going on in her absence. If she’s been relying on Alan, Neil, and Jock for information, then it’s highly unlikely that she’s getting honest reports. The moderators’ behavior has been atrocious, and they are almost certainly trying to cover that up in their reports to Lizzie.
Just imagine someone who’s been away as long as Lizzie, reading through the Moderation Issues threads and seeing what these guys have been doing in her name. Man, oh, man.
Apologies to Keiths;
The account should now be suspended.
Well, I was going to post something in Noyau, but since keiths isn’t here to defend himself I am not going to do that.
And no way am I gloating. This was brought on by the lack of prior moderation where it should have been applied. It never should have been allowed to get this far.
Can keiths still read comments?
Mung,
Yes.
I think a 30 day suspension is quite harsh and comes completely out of the blue, unless something else is going on that I am unaware of. Was any prior warning given?
I don’t think my account was ever suspended, but when I was “throttled” in some way, and I have been in the past, it was made clear to me what I needed to do or commit to in order to be given the same freedoms as everyone else.
But with keiths It’s not at all clear what violation has occurred. Was it simply the disdain for the moderators, because I think we all share that. 😉
Mung,
It was a new situation. Posting an arguably libellous OP including accusations of lying and being unresponsive to requests to support the unsupported allegation. Further comments unresponsive to the issue deemed it unlikely (in my view) that any purpose would be served by moderating Keiths’s comments. It would just create more work for admins. He appears to have no regard for the rules of this site. I quote Lizzie again:
Alan Fox,
You appear to have no regard for the rules. At least doesn’t make up rules that don’t exist.
I thought you were done moderating, aren’t you supposed to go fuck off somewhere?
Again, just coincidence that keiths just so happens to hate you. That doesn’t effect your objectivity at all. I guess you don’t mind when posters make libelous statements about commentators at UD, THAT is different. Or about Douglas Axe, or Winston Ewert, or Cornelius Hunter…
Well, just coincidence….look a squirrel!
You are such a dishonest ass Alan.
Your continued ability to post defeats your argument,phoodoo.
I agree with that. I completely support the moderator treatment of that OP and thread. It was an execrable tantrum. Did his second OP ever see the light of day? I assume not, since Jock pointed out it still violated some rules.
Any thoughts from the mods on what their reactions may have been if keiths had posted the second OP in Noyau? There’s no censorship here, he could have posted it in Noyau. (Yes, that’s sarcasm.)
It’s obvious that I am no fan of keiths, but man, this all seems sudden and excessive and without notice or warning, and I don’t think that’s right. (By the way, I don’t think you did this unilaterally.)
Can we just consider this a wake up call and perhaps dial back on the suspension?
No it doesn’t all Newton. My posts were blocked, then Alan later sent me a private message telling me I am unblocked as long as I promise not to break the rules anymore. Which is absolutely hilarious considering I never broke any rules to begin with, and since the moderators have decided they can make up any rules at any time they want now, how could one promise not to break rules that don’t exist.
So I no longer post here anymore, other than to point out that Alan and Neil are totally full of shit.
Alan of course is still drunk with his made up power, so he just can’t get enough of it. It had been just too long since he did something else to be a skeptic nazi, he was getting the shakes. “Who can I ban…I can’t take this!. I hate keiths, can I please for ol time sakes Neil?”
Lizzie’s pissboy just can’t give her up.
It took a while, but we got around to it eventually. Surprised that you are complaining, though.
FYI, the rule violation that got you temporarily put in pre-moderation: persistently attempting to discuss moderation on the wrong thread.
For you information, first that isn’t my quote douchbag.
Secondly, I didn’t discuss moderation, I quoted a poster. So you all made up a rule to try to hide the egg on your face.
Thirdly, …no I don’t need to explain thirdly. You guys are a bunch of disingenuous clowns.
Look, another squirrel!
Calling someone a liar is against the rules. I would move it to Guano.
This is the slippery path that Elizabeth has chosen to try to navigate with Guano and Noyau and the decision to not censor except in cases of porn and outing.
Why yes, keiths chose to subvert the OP publishing process and post his “second OP” in its entirety as a comment in the Moderation thread. Neil moved it to guano.
Given that keiths’s re-write is still rule-violating, and (under U.K. law) still potentially libelous, I hope you can appreciate how his end-run led the moderators to take more drastic action. We really can’t baby-sit 24/7.
As to “without warning”, I am surprised that you didn’t pick up on the earlier warnings.
I don’t usually read the moderation thread, but since it is the only currently active thread…
Lizzy’s rule is correct, and it is under enforced. Comments about the poster rather than the ideas leads to where we are.
Oh yes it is, you beautiful human being, you. You really should have tried clicking on the blue text – it’s a what we call a “link” phoodoo — before accusing me of making stuff up.
😀
I assume that the “more drastic action” was to prevent further undesired behavior, or as punishment, as it does nothing to change the past.
I’m still confused though as to how moving a post to Guano makes it any less libelous.
I like how your links actually work. LoL.
petrushka,
Underenforced, ha! Of course it was underenforced, because the constant deluge of posts attacking the person were from the likes of Tom English, Tom Mueller, DNA Jock, Rumraket, Omagain, and the entire list of skeptic brethren preachers.
But lucky for Alan, his nemesis wrote something personal, SO NOW ACTION MUST BE TAKEN! Neil and Alan have been Sergeant Shultz for 5 years (“What, what, someone made fun of Denise O’Leary, or Barry Arrington- I see nothing!”) but oh wait, I hate keiths!
Now Jock wants in on the fun, so he can show he can be just as despicable and parasitic as them.
Like I wrote in the bit that you snipped out, “We can’t baby-sit 24/7.”
Oh, it’s still equally libelous (if at all), but the fact that the website moderated the comment provides protection for Lizzie, not for keiths.
DNA_Jock,
You are SO UTTERLY FULL OF HORSESHIT Jock. Keiths can say whatever the fuck he wants about Swamidass, it has nothing to do with Lizzie. Lizzie isn’t responsible to know what Keith is basing his judgement on. And why are you ignoring all of the personal insults you guys have made constantly towards the ID community?
Are you off you fucking rocker? You have never seen them? Your seeing eye dog ate your computer? You accidentally superglued your lips thinking it was oyster sauce?
ok, thanks for that explanation. Thoughts on the approach if it had been posted in Noyau? Will mods be moving “potentially libelous” posts from Noyau to Guano?
You see, DNA_Jock, Elizabeth has made it quite clear that Moderation Issues has a no holds barred policy, just like Noyau. So I could care less that keiths violated some unwritten (“end run”) rule about bypassing the normal OP process and posting in Moderation Issues.
He could have equally posted it in Noyau, where the normal rules likewise don’t apply. What then?
Simple. Just make up more fake rules.
Voila!
Mung,
In fact, I think DNA Jock should be banned for quoting me from a year and a half ago.
I mean we know full well that his actual meaning was pornographic, and just because it wasn’t technically pornographic, it could be considered so if that was his hidden message.
So please ban him Alan. You and Neil are well versed in decoding hidden meanings and banning for them, right?
*Quoting=Ban Except when it doesn’t. Just like all the rules.
I think they should have just inserted a “voice from the sky” (just like Barry and KF) into the OP. LoL!
Oh, wait.
Again, the rules ain’t great. But, while they could be improved, they can’t be made perfect. A certain amount of trust, mutual respect, etc. is required. And, as FMM and I have suggested, a diversity of moderator viewpoints is also indicated.
But let me once again make my sour prediction. The rules will not be changed, and no theist currently active here will become an (actual) moderator. Those, I believe are the facts. I wish it were otherwise.
Is the continual screeching about it serving some purpose? Will it result in Lizzie agreeing to stricter (or less strict) rules? Will it cause Vince to actually participate? Will it make the current mods essentially different? What is the point of the hollering? Catharsis?
I’ve missed you phoodoo. But when I quote a rule-breaking comment I am definitely making a statement about moderation. It’s implied, even if not stated.
For me, it serves as a reminder of how good we have it.
I recommend to phoodoo that he take a page out of J-mac’s book. Forget whatever or whoever he’s upset about a minute later.
I know. Everything I have ever written on this site is actually about moderation, I wonder what took them so long. And clearly everything DNA Jock writes is implied pornography. I mean even his name is. Come on, he isn’t trying very hard to hide it.
I think everything Alan has ever written here is about parodying Lizzie. Shouldn’t that also be against the rules?
(And BTW, I wouldn’t even post here at all if you weren’t here Mung. )
Hi everyone,
I’ve been away for a few weeks because I’ve been working on a review of Michael Alter’s book, The Resurrection: A Critical Inquiry. It’s a very powerfully argued book, and it’s taken a lot of my time to get through it, because it has quite a lot to say: it’s a real game-changer.
I just stumbled on the latest controversy today. I’d like to make two comments, and then I’ll get back to my review.
1. Over at his blog, Dr. Swamidass has silenced keiths for one week. Might I be so bold as to suggest that a one-month suspension at TSZ is a little excessive.
2. Accusations of lying should not be made lightly. The Principle of Charity should guide us, whenever we are tempted to call someone a liar: there are usually alternative explanations. Before committing an angry comment to print, it’s sometimes better to sleep on it. Another thing to bear in mind is that whether we like it or not, people tend to have different standards of honesty, and almost nobody is consistently honest in all things (or dishonest, for that matter). A woman who calls a shop assistant’s attention to the fact that he has given her too much change may nevertheless omit to declare the tips she receives at work on her annual tax return. What you might call blatantly dishonest, another person may consider a mere bagatelle. Just saying.
Walto, are you calling Alan an anti-Semite? That’s against the rules?
Speaking only for myself, I am assuming that Swamidass is unlikely to sue us, and a judge might well recognize that we have taken reasonable steps.
I have no idea whether he would consider suing keiths.