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.

1,769 thoughts on “Moderation Issues (5)

  1. phoodoo: Everything I have ever written on this site is actually about moderation, I wonder what took them so long.

    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.

  2. Mung: 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.

  3. Neil Rickert: Mung: He could have equally posted it in Noyau, where the normal rules likewise don’t apply. What then?

    I would have moved that to guano.

    And if keiths could have posted it directly to guano, Neil would have moved it to noyau, just to show him who is boss!

  4. Neil Rickert: I would have moved that to guano.

    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.

    DNA_Jock: Your original post violated the ‘poster’ rule, the ‘peanut gallery’ guideline and the ‘accusing other posters of dishonesty’ rule.

    Which of those is not allowed in Noyau?

  5. Mung: 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.

    They only had to know that phoodoo considered it rule-breaking.

    Just a technical point.

  6. Neil Rickert: They only had to know that phoodoo considered it rule-breaking.

    Based on your code breaking?

    When are you going to crack down on all of Jock’s talk about bestiality then?

  7. vjtorley:
    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 mayconsider a mere bagatelle. Just saying.

    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?

  8. walto:
    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’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…

  9. Mung: Which of those is not allowed in Noyau?

    Upon mature consideration, it may be the quasi-doxxing aspect that is most problematic for the keiths-defenders:

    Firstly: If someone has made it clear who they are in RL, e.g. by linking to their publications, that is fine, and it is still fine for others to acknowledge the identity if their publications are being discussed. However, it is not OK to use that person’s RL name in personal attacks, which are against the game-rules anyway (“assume the other person is posting in good faith”; “address the argument, not the person”) but are not in themselves things I would ever ban anyone for. Such posts just get moved to guano, just as pieces get moved off a chess board. But if in breaking those rules, you invoke someone’s personal ID, that is not on, the reason being that I don’t want such personal attacks here to come up in a google search of that person’s RL name, as such things happen, as I know to my cost.

  10. Mung: Fixed that fer ya!

    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).

  11. Mung: We’re talking about his “second OP,” the one he posted in Moderation Issues.

    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.

  12. DNA_Jock: Upon mature consideration, it may be the quasi-doxxing aspect that is most problematic for the keiths-defenders:

    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?

  13. Alan:

    I’ve just suspended the account of Keiths for a minimum of thirty days.

    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.

  14. stcordova: 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…

  15. DNA_Jock: Upon mature consideration, it may be the quasi-doxxing aspect that is most problematic for the keiths-defenders:

    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?

  16. I don’t know why I thought the mods had probably discussed this 30 day ban before implementing it. Silly me.

  17. DNA_Jock: Personally, I view guano as the referee’s whistle, no more.

    And a repository for “potentially libelous” and “quasi-doxxing” comments.

    Just a whistle though!

  18. Neil Rickert: The restrictions were lifted, once he appeared to have stopped that kind of disruptive posting.

    You see phoodoo, the original comments were not disruptive, but your quoting of them was disruptive. Good to hear you have stopped being disruptive.

  19. Neil Rickert: 3: Keiths can still post comments. However, if he abuses that ability, then he will be placed in moderation. In particular, a burst of moderation complaints will be considered abuse.

    You were warned, keiths!

  20. DNA_Jock: Your new OP avoids the third problem I mentioned, but still suffers from the first two.

    The first two being:

    1. the ‘poster’ rule
    2. the ‘peanut gallery’ guideline

    Neil Rickert: And it is still completely inappropriate for TSZ.

    Why? Quasi-Doxxing?

    Because in that case phoodoo has some excellent points.

  21. 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.

  22. 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.

  23. 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.

  24. DNA_Jock:
    phoodoo,

    I want to encourage you to try to distinguish between “attacking” an academic by pointing out that he is wrong (and explaining exactly why he is wrong), versus“attacking” an academic by making the baseless assertion that he is lying. Two different things. The first is the very basis of academic discourse, the second is like threatening his family.

    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.

  25. phoodoo: 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.

    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.

  26. phoodoo: 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,

    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.

  27. 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.

  28. 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…

  29. phoodoo probably has in mind posts like this one:

    But the evidence indicates he [Douglas Axe] is a liar and a con man.

    Or this one:

    If anyone doubts that [Stephen] Meyer is a fundamentally dishonest person.

    Or even this one, by our very own dear Elizabeth:

    While I have a certainly amount of respect for Dembski’s writing, I have none at all for Meyer’s. I don’t think he writes “in good faith”. He’s got a good enough brain and a good enough training in scholarship to do due diligence. That he doesn’t makes him simply lying in my view.

    He must know how deceptive he was being in Darwin’s Doubt, even if he half believed what he was writing in Signature in the Cell.

    Earth to Jock!

    DNA_Jock: There is little point in continuing a conversation with someone so divorced from reality.

  30. Mung: phoodoo probably has in mind posts like this one:

    Phoodoo has valid points, however he undercuts his position by employing flagrant violations of the rules to make his point.

  31. 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, are you saying that Axe’s peer-reviewed published work was refuted in a blog post?

    Patrick:

    It did the job. Heck, a carefully composed Twitter tweet could do the job.
    (Peer review is just the first hurdle — any paper is then subject to scrutiny by experts in the field. Axe’s does not stand up to such scrutiny.)

    Mung:

    Axe is a liar and a con man isn’t going to cut it though. So can we rule out that it will be composed by Elizabeth?


    Adapa
    (not on phoodoo’s list of miscreants; should be, though):

    But the evidence indicates he is a liar and a con man. Axe is way too scientifically savvy to not know his “declare ID is correct then cherry pick the evidence to support the claim while ignoring all the contradictory data” is dishonest non-science.

    Adapa was (indirectly) quoting you, Mung.
    Dateline: 2015
    😮
    It’s rampant, I tell you!

    E4typo

  32. Mung, quoting Elizabeth:

    While I have a certainly amount of respect for Dembski’s writing, I have none at all for Meyer’s. I don’t think he writes “in good faith”. He’s got a good enough brain and a good enough training in scholarship to do due diligence. That he doesn’t makes him simply lying in my view.

    Good find, Mung.

    Well, Jock? Will you be lobbying for a 30-day suspension of Lizzie, for accusing someone of lying?

  33. 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.

  34. 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!

  35. I’m responding to what keiths wrote in another thread:

    As you know, there are comments of mine waiting for approval in the Squawk Box thread. The last one was published yesterday (by Lizzie?), and new ones have been waiting for over 24 hours.

    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.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.