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.
DNA Jock for instance.
I would have moved that to guano.
The thing is, the mods had to know the comments you quoted were rule-breaking, else why would they associate them with moderation at all.
So they condemn themselves, and punish you.
Hypocrisy has never stopped a determined Nazi.
And if keiths could have posted it directly to guano, Neil would have moved it to noyau, just to show him who is boss!
We’re talking about his “second OP,” the one he posted in Moderation Issues.
Jock identified three issues with the first one, and indicated that keiths had addressed one of those three problems in his second attempt, but had not addressed the other two.
Which of those is not allowed in Noyau?
They only had to know that phoodoo considered it rule-breaking.
Just a technical point.
Based on your code breaking?
When are you going to crack down on all of Jock’s talk about bestiality then?
Fixed that fer ya!
On one hand, you say accusations of lying should be taken seriously, and on the other, you suggest a less stiff penalty for a guy who calls pretty much everyone he disagrees with on any subject a liar (usually an embarrassed one). Right off the top of my head, I can name me, Jock, mung, Alan, Neil, kn, hotshoe, fmm, phoodoo, William and Sal. And not just once, but over and over and over.
Would you care to explain this apparent discrepancy?
I’m just too lazy to hold a grudge, remember? 😉
Plus, life is too short to try to keep track of little, stupid thingies that, in the end, mean nothing…
Have you ever been able to convert anyone to your set of beliefs?
I don’t know if I have but if I were to bet, Robert Byers may be thinking about the possibility of a quantum soul and that info found in DNA is not all there is that makes up life…
This blog should be renamed to The Whining Zone…
I think everyone should just drop all this nonsense and focus on the real science, such as the unfounded speculations about evolution done by the usual suspects…
Come on! Let’s go!
ETA: I got my publishing privileges taken away because the holy trinity with Harshman being the most offended by one of my OPs complained… This means that my OPs need to be reviewed first. It wasn’t fair but I moved on… Now, Neil really tries hard to have it posted as soon as he gets my email or sees my comment about it. I can live with that though it would be nice to have the rights back for the sake of edits and updates…
I’m not going to spend the rest my life complaining about it… It is stupid and childish…
If anything, I’d like to see admis sending comments to guano with obscene words that attack the commentator…
Upon mature consideration, it may be the quasi-doxxing aspect that is most problematic for the keiths-defenders:
Technically the problem wasn’t that I was discussing moderation in the wrong thread, its that I was THINKING about moderation in the wrong thread.
Neil doesn’t like when you have evil thoughts.
(Eating dog meat is not evil to Neil, evidently. I remember Omagain thinking of that once).
Yes, we are. And it is still completely inappropriate for TSZ. As I saw it, the only choice was to remove it or to move to guano.
And a side note: I see that keiths can still post, but his posts go to the moderation queue. I have approved one post, but I put it in guano. In that post, keiths is reacting to what vjtorley posted.
I am not so clear what you mean. You mean like about Douglas Axe, or Winston Ewert or Barry Arrington or Denise O’Leary, or…. Is that what you mean Jock?
Here is a link to the guanoed comment.
This is what I mean, phoodoo.
Yikes. How can keiths live through it? He needs his daily dose of the highs he gets being here at TSZ. Poor keiths. Doesn’t matter too much to me personally since he’s on my ignore list. But to his credit, he keeps my thread alive by chiming a response to what I say…..
Hey keiths, if you’re reading this, come back soon. Mung misses you already.
Hey Sal!
It is pretty true but sat as the same time what you wrote about keiths… I don’t know what’s better though: blogging to death of drinking to death as a retiree…
I chose learning… 🙂
BTW: I’m glad you are busy and doing well…
So it’s a fourth thing, now that you’ve had time to reflect. I’ve failed to defend keiths from that charge. Do I lose my “keiths-defender” status?
Meanwhile, which of those [three] is not allowed in Noyau?
I don’t know why I thought the mods had probably discussed this 30 day ban before implementing it. Silly me.
And a repository for “potentially libelous” and “quasi-doxxing” comments.
Just a whistle though!
You see phoodoo, the original comments were not disruptive, but your quoting of them was disruptive. Good to hear you have stopped being disruptive.
You were warned, keiths!
The first two being:
1. the ‘poster’ rule
2. the ‘peanut gallery’ guideline
Why? Quasi-Doxxing?
Because in that case phoodoo has some excellent points.
J-Mac,
Yes, there’s a ton of whining. Screeching too.
Mung,
Peanut gallery: location is irrelevant.
Also, Noyau is intended for conversations between consenting adults: slagging someone off (in Noyau) for not engaging in Noyau is considered infra dig.
Mung,
Hilarious logic fail. Must I explain?
Ooookay. Ref blows his whistle. That’s not a reprimand. He’s just stopping play.
He may then punish miscreants (free kick), issue a warning (yellow card) or eject (red card). Or not.
To be serious, though, I think it would be more honorable to minimize potential injury to the innocent by deleting the extreme rule-breaking comments, but that would lack transparency. So, from a purely selfish, personal perspective it is the ‘course of least resistance’ for the moderators to leave the comments visible and thereby avoid the need to put up with a whole new round of asinine speculation…
Mung,
No, phoodoo doesn’t have a point, excellent or otherwise, and I explained why two pages ago.
Sweet
They’re a jolly ban of mutineers!
Ironically, no screeching has the same effect for me.
Mung: Is this the thread where we get to post anything that is off limits in all the other threads?
Elizabeth: Yes
Just a note about the “suspension” of keiths.
WordPress doesn’t actually have such a thing as a 30 day suspension. At present, keiths is in moderation. His posts go to the pending queue. However, some of the posts to his own thread (on walto’s paper) are not being held.
To minimize the discontinuity of discussion, I am releasing his posts in that thread. I have also release some posts for the “Squawk Box” thread, so that he can have a say there. I presume that Elizabeth knows where to find pending posts if she wants to see others that are still held.
Thanks Neil. I’m greatly relieved to hear that keiths is suffering no worse a fate than so many others have at this site. Not so much the martyr anymore.
I am not about to bother going back and showing you about 1000 posts worth of TSZ regulars attacking the person not the idea of people in the ID community, because if you honestly think people here are just too stupid to have ever noticed this happening by Tom, Tom, Joe, Alan, You, John Harshman, and a whole host of your drinking (euphemism for smoking crack, obviously) buddies, then the problem is surely that you think people are as dumb as you are (and that is not a personal attack, that is an attack on your ability to think).
Go piss off, you haven’t explained anything other than that you are a Team Skeptic cheerleader.
Yes, well, now you know to come here to do your thinking. Though how the mods are tracking that, I don’t know. Perhaps they sub-contract to keiths. Hhis mind-reading skills are legendary.
Well, I am sure that a few posts have slipped through the cracks (enforcement is stochastic), but I suspect that the vast majority of the posts that upset you are not rule-violating, and in particular do not involve accusing academics of dishonesty.
When I look at the commenters that you single out, I am convinced of your cluelessness: Tom M may be abrasive, Tom E has a good reason to be pissed, but Joe F, Alan F, John H (and Rumraket, whom you cited earlier) have a very strong track record of engaging on the arguments, not the personalities. I am pretty careful myself.
Here’s a tip: when talking about someone who does not post at TSZ, it is an acceptable shorthand to write “he’s a moron” — this is short for “the comments he makes at UD are uniformly moronic”.
The only UD regular whom I can recall being accused of dishonesty is Barry A.
This disparagement has a rock solid “fair comment” defense and, additionally, he is not an academic.
What is this academic/non-academic distinction thing?
Josh S is an academic. Within the experimental sciences, the accusation of fraud is potentially career-ending (Thereza Imanishi-Kari was finally vindicated, though…). My understanding is that for academics outside of experimental sciences, it’s plagiarism that’s the killer, but I could be wrong about that.
On the other hand, attacking an academic’s arguments, even disparaging his intelligence or grasp of the subject matter, is par for the course.
I doubt that phoodoo understands the difference.
Are new OPs still allowed? Or the new rules would have to be introduced first, perhaps?
It’s Friday and I wouldn’t want to disappoint all my fans 😉
I’m sure everyone knows how much this means to me…
DNA_Jock,
I can see why you’ve made that distinction. Thanks.
Your mom reads this blog?
Yes. But, as usual, you should remind us when you have one that you want to be considered.
phoodoo probably has in mind posts like this one:
Or this one:
Or even this one, by our very own dear Elizabeth:
Earth to Jock!
Phoodoo has valid points, however he undercuts his position by employing flagrant violations of the rules to make his point.
That’s cute Mung, but if that’s your best effort, you are making my point for me.
1) Meyer, like myself, is a former academic. The difference between us is that my continued employment depends on my being correct, whereas his depends, well, errr, let’s just say that Lying for Jesus is okay.
Axe is an academic, and adapa did accuse him of being a liar. One hit, 999 more to go.
Just for fun, let’s check out the context, which you omitted:
Mung:
Patrick:
Mung:
Adapa (not on phoodoo’s list of miscreants; should be, though):
Adapa was (indirectly) quoting you, Mung.
Dateline: 2015
😮
It’s rampant, I tell you!
E4typo
Mung, quoting Elizabeth:
Good find, Mung.
Well, Jock? Will you be lobbying for a 30-day suspension of Lizzie, for accusing someone of lying?
Also, this whole “academics shouldn’t be accused of lying, because they’re academics and it might hurt their careers” rationale is ridiculous.
First of all, anyone can be hurt by accusations of lying. That’s why it’s important that people not make them unless they are willing and able to back them up. (I was, of course.)
Second, my accusations had nothing at all to do with Swamidass’s academic work. “Swamidass is an academic; therefore he’s immune to criticism in other areas of his life” is not a valid argument.
See how this works Mung, the more examples you point out, the more you are making Jocks point. This is the danger of crack cocaine.
You see, this doesn’t count, because well, he’s not REALLY an academic, so its ok. And, well, HE IS DISHONEST, so of course we can point THAT out. And Alan sometimes argues the point not the person, so if he does occasionally, that doesn’t really count, does it?
And Lizzie is the site owner for crying out loud Mung, Do you really think its fair to point out HER calling someone in academia dishonest? Its Lizzie Mung, what’s wrong with you?
Plus a lot of these academics are outside of experimental science, can’t you see the difference!! Geez! Thanks for proving my point.
And I think one of the examples you mentioned occurred on a Thursday. A Thursday Mung!
Plus a calling some a moron is not calling them a liar. So if most of the time we are calling them morons and not liars, why do you have to always bring up the times we call them liars, instead of focusing on the moron accusation, which is well established.
I could go on if need be, but when you are soaring on meth-amphetamines like Jock, its not even a challenge to come up with excuses. Whew, this stuff works!
Moron. Fuck, I just singed my fingers! ha!
I’m responding to what keiths wrote in another thread:
I have no plans to release those held posts.
Keiths is supposedly under suspension. And that would not mean anything if his attempted posts all appeared.
I have been releasing posts on one thread (the thread about walto’s paper), for the sake of continuity of the discussion there. Since keiths started that thread, some of his posts were getting through anyway. So best to allow them all.
I also released one or two posts to the “Squawk Box” thread, so that keiths could have a voice there. I’m sure that Elizabeth knows where to find the moderation queue if she want to see his other attempts to post to that thread.
Beyond that, I do not expect to release posts by keiths, unless there is an agreement among administrators to do so.
Motive mongering again? How’d that work out last time?