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.

973 thoughts on “Moderation Issues (5)

  1. I asked and was replied:
    “If you want OP privileges, make your request in the Moderation Issues thread. The moderators can help you out.
    However, most discussions take place in the comment threads, so you should get used to that. It isn’t very awkward, contrary to your assessment.”

    Someone else said just go to + New. I did and the topic created was denied.
    Question is: what are your criteria for accepting new topics?
    Thanks,

  2. Neil Rickert: phoodoo: Why did you move posts of mine that simply quoted others Neil?

    They belonged in the moderation thread.

    Neil, are you avoiding answering this because it makes you look bad?

    I quoted posters. You moved that to guano, for no reason, other than it shows you are incompetent.

    Is it appropriate that you just make up any rules you want, contrary to the site owners mission statement?

  3. phoodoo: I quoted posters. You moved that to guano, for no reason, other than it shows you are incompetent.

    I had a choice.

    I could take them to be complaints about moderation, and move them to guano.

    Or I could take them to be spamming the thread and ban you completely since you have previously been suspended for that offense.

    I took the first option.

  4. Neil,

    You had another option, which was to leave them alone.

    And the entire brouhaha would have been averted if you had just exercised some self-control and left Nonlin’s original comment unguanoed.

    Like Alan, you keep fucking up, over and over. Learn from your mistakes. When you get the urge to guano, don’t.

    We shouldn’t have to babysit you.

  5. Neil Rickert: I had a choice.

    I could take them to be complaints about moderation, and move them to guano.

    Or I could take them to be spamming the thread and ban you completely since you have previously been suspended for that offense.

    I took the first option.

    Why of course Neil, you can always just accuse someone of spamming, when you don’t like their responses (whatever the hell spamming means in this case, another meaning you just created) and ban them. Heck you can just decide you don’t like someones avatar and ban them. Or ban anyone who shows you how dumb your ideas are or who tells you your math is wrong.

    You can do all of those things.

    And the only two repercussions are that you violate Lizzie’s wishes, and everyone sees you are a jackass.

  6. Other things Neil can do (off the top of my head):

    1. Edit people’s posts to make it look like they said things they didn’t.
    2. Accuse posters of posting porn and ban them.
    3. Hide people’s posts without telling anyone
    4. Plagiarize
    5. Infect the site with a virus
    6. Out IP addresses
    7. Only ban people who disagree with him.
    8. Move posts to guano which are mostly from creationists, but every so often move one from a theist that is particularly egregious, so that he can claim he moves posts from all posters.
    9. Steal.
    10.Completely make shit up.

    These are just a few of the things Neil can do. Isn’t it cool?

    What other things can we think of that Neil can do? Oh I know, he can still go fuck himself.

  7. I am trying to attach a PDF but when I use the upload tool this is what I get.

     variation-in-japanese-wood-mice-1.pdf

  8. Alan Fox,

    Why not just link to it? It is 12 pages. I suspect it exceeds the limit set for displaying attachments in comments.

    What is the process to do this?

  9. Alan, is Neils holding your balls in a purse string?

    Note*- Posted in moderation, but Neil has blocked me, because, well, Neil can.

  10. Which of you is holding Lizzie hostage, Alan or Neil? Should we get the police, is she being abused? Does Neil have her locked in his basement?

  11. phoodoo:
    Which of you is holding Lizzie hostage, Alan or Neil? Should we get the police, is she being abused?Does Neil have her locked in his basement?

    No. She has other calls on her time.

  12. phoodoo: Note*- Posted in moderation, but Neil has blocked me, because, well, Neil can.

    A note about phoodoo:

    He is not blocked. But he is being moderated.

    He has posted a long string of complaints about moderation, and he posted those in regular threads. As long as he continues that, he will stay in moderation.

  13. phoodoo:
    Alan, is Neils holding your balls in a purse string?

    Neils? Is this some subtle wordplay? Anyway, no, and a fair amount of Atlantic Ocean between us would make it difficult. Discussion, queries and complaints about individual moderating decisions should be made in this thread and not elsewhere. Comments that raise such queries elsewhere* will likely move to guano. In your case, there was an unacceptable volley of comments tantamount to spamming. The pre-moderation restriction is a consequence. Could I ask you to try and refrain from posting comments about moderation in other threads? If you can, we’ll lift the restriction.

    ETA elsewhere

  14. Oops Ninja’d

    Neil Rickert: As long as he continues that, he will stay in moderation.

    I think that is synonymous with “Could I ask you to try and refrain from posting comments about moderation in other threads? If you can, we’ll lift the restriction.”

  15. PS @ phoodoo

    “The stupidity you continually write rarely has a point.” is not guano-worthy. There is a distinction between a general accusation of stupidity ( e g “God, you’re slow!”) and pointing out a claim or assertion in a comment is “stupid”.

  16. Alan Fox:
    PS @ phoodoo

    “The stupidity you continually write rarely has a point.” is not guano-worthy. There is a distinction between a general accusation of stupidity ( e g “God, you’re slow!”) and pointing out a claim or assertion in a comment is “stupid”.

    Nothing or anything is guano worthy since neil brags he doesn’t have to follow any rules.
    You know, like when Lizzie says:

    FEEL FREE TO COMMENT ON THEM AT ANY OTHER PEANUT GALLERY OF YOUR CHOICE

    So at the same time you say I don’t give a fuck about the rules, you can also say fuck you to what Lizzie says.

    I don’t really care, you have already lost by exposing your hypocrisy.

  17. Alan Fox:
    PS @ phoodoo

    “The stupidity you continually write rarely has a point.” is not guano-worthy. There is a distinction between a general accusation of stupidity ( e g “God, you’re slow!”) and pointing out a claim or assertion in a comment is “stupid”.

    I don’t understand that post. Which one of those is supposed to be OK? Is “The stupidity you continually write….” OK because it’s general (perhaps like “God, you’re slow!” on your view?), but saying an assertion in a comment is stupid is guanoable because it’s not general (but specific to the comment)?

    Assuming that (very tentative) theory is correct, because I really can’t tell what you’re trying to convey there, is something like “S is an utter dipship” OK (because particular)? or do you consider it general (perhaps because it’s about S’s abilities, “generally”?

    Anyhow, FWIW, I think you should publish the manual you’re relying on. You seem to be relying on some very obscure distinctions.

  18. walto: I don’t understand that post.

    I’ll try and explain then.

    Which one of those is supposed to be OK?

    The comment beginning “The stupidity you write…” is not guano-worthy. Whether it is OK is a different question.

    Is “The stupidity you continually write….” OK because it’s general (perhaps like “God, you’re slow!” on your view?), but saying an assertion in a comment is stupid is guanoable because it’s not general (but specific to the comment)?

    Comments of the generic type “that comment is stupid” are not guano-worthy. They should be open to challenge and requests for supporting with evidence (that’s missing in the current rules).

    Assuming that (very tentative) theory is correct, because I really can’t tell what you’re trying to convey there, is something like “S is an utter dipship” OK (because particular)? or do you consider itgeneral (perhaps because it’s about S’s abilities, “generally”?

    It is the difference between objecting to a specific assertion or claim made by a member and objecting to another member’s general cognitive ability.

    Anyhow, FWIW, I think you should publish the manual you’re relying on.

    Well, I’ve already said many times the rules could do with assembling in one place and streamlining. I asked if anyone was interested. I’d be most grateful if you were to have a go.

    You seem to be relying on some very obscure distinctions.

    I’d accept “arcane”.

  19. phoodoo: Nothing or anything is guano worthy since neil brags he doesn’t have to follow any rules.
    You know, like when Lizzie says:

    FEEL FREE TO COMMENT ON THEM AT ANY OTHER PEANUT GALLERY OF YOUR CHOICE

    So at the same time you say I don’t give a fuck about the rules, you can also say fuck you to what Lizzie says.

    I don’t really care, you have already lost by exposing your hypocrisy.

    Not sure what the specific complaint here is.

  20. Alan Fox: Not sure what the specific complaint here is.

    I take his complaint to be that Lizzie said that one may comment in “any peanut gallery”, but the current moderation practice is to disallow such remarks anywhere but the moderation forum.

    Re your request to write something up on rules, I’m not going down that rabbit hole (there are a bunch of them at TSZ, actually) again. I’ve recommended specific changes to several rules at least twice in the past, and nothing ever happens. Generally, the reason has been that’s “it’s up to Lizzie.”

    I will say, though, that your explanation above isn’t clarificatory at all. What I think you should be looking at is the distinction between remarks addressed to POSTS and remarks addressed to POSTERS. That’s been the usual way of thinking about ad hominem remarks. Your comments about general v. specific just confuse the issue. It doesn’t matter at all whether an attack is “general” or “specific”–what’s relevant is its target.

  21. I’m semi-retired now, and would have time for moderating, but I’d be interested only if the place could be made more civil than it is now. As I’ve said many times, I don’t think the current rules are sufficient.

    I agree with phoodoo and keiths that what there is not always applied impartially, but I don’t agree with keiths that we ought to have less moderation rather than more.

    It’s a little like gun laws. People think there’s a “natural, God-given right” at play there too.

  22. walto: I take his complaint to be that Lizzie said that one may comment in “any peanut gallery”, but the current moderation practice is to disallow such remarks anywhere but the moderation forum.

    If so, then I’ve answered that. I don’t think that particular comment was guano-worthy.

    Re your request to write something up on rules, I’m not going down that rabbit hole (there are a bunch of them at TSZ, actually) again.I’ve recommended specific changes to several rules at least twice in the past, and nothing ever happens.Generally, the reason has been that’s “it’s up to Lizzie.”

    It’s a fact that Lizzie finaces the site and chooses to let it run as it does in her absence. The situation is not ideal.

    I will say, though, that your explanation above isn’t clarificatory at all. What I think you should be looking at is the distinction between remarks addressed to POSTS and remarks addressed to POSTERS.

    That is the distinction I am making. The distinction between “you are stupid” and “that statement is stupid” is what I am working with.

    That’s been the usual way of thinking about ad hominem remarks.

    And that is how I’m interpreting things.

    Your comments about general v. specific just confuse the issue.It doesn’t matter at all whether an attack is “general” or “specific”–what’s relevant is its target.

    There’s a misunderstanding there. I certainly did not mean to suggest I’m making a general/specific distinction. I’m distinguishing between, for example “wow, walto, what a stupid thing to say” (bonus points if followed up with “because…” and reasons) and “God, walto, you are stupid.”

  23. Alan Fox: walto: I take his complaint to be that Lizzie said that one may comment in “any peanut gallery”, but the current moderation practice is to disallow such remarks anywhere but the moderation forum.

    If so, then I’ve answered that. I don’t think that particular comment was guano-worthy.

    That’s not responsive. phoodoo says that according to Lizzie’s rules one may comment on any post that finds its way to guano ANYWHERE EXCEPT GUANO. You take the position that such comments may only be made in the moderation area. FWIW, I have no problem with your position, myself, but it does seem to be a revision, and is not consistent with the claim that you’re following Lizzie’s rules.

  24. Alan Fox: Not sure what the specific complaint here is.

    You can’t understand that Lizzie said you can comment on these posts wherever you like, and you and Neil have suppressed my posting ability for doing exactly that? That you can’t understand???

    And yet YOU HAVE DONE NOTHING about the people who have done all the ad hominen insult posting. Instead you essentially banned me for quoting them. What a complete farce. I QUOTED them, nothing more nothing less, and I get blocked. HA!

    Here’s one vote for Walto. Retire already, both you and Neil.

  25. walto,

    Yea, he doesn’t mind someone saying the “stupidity you continually write”, that’s fine.

    BUT, if I quote that, well, you better block me for that.

    And keith better not say you fucked up Alan, because that’s also punishable.

    Yea, that’s too complicated for you and NEIL to see any problem.

  26. walto: That’s not responsive. phoodoo says that according to Lizzie’s rules one may comment on any post that finds its way to guano ANYWHERE EXCEPT GUANO.

    That’s incorrect. Ganuo’d comments cannot be commented on, that’s the point and how TSZ was set up. Lizzie set a trend of moving comments that commented on or quoted a comment that was guano-worthy to retain continuity.

    You take the position that such comments may only be made in the moderation area.

    Yes, Lizzie made that decision. It’s not stated in the rules page. It does exist. Honest. I’ll dig it out later.

    FWIW, I have no problem with your position, myself, but it does seem to be a revision, and is not consistent with the claim that you’re following Lizzie’s rules.

    Well, It will depend on my finding the reference, I suppose. There’s a concert on in our local church followed by a “repas animé” so it will have to wait till tomorrow now.

  27. Alan Fox,

    So Lizzie was senile or drunk when she wrote:

    “Do not regard having your post moved here as a reprimand, merely as a referee’s whistle. 🙂

    Feel free to comment on them at any other peanut gallery of your choice.”

    Drunk, senile or both Alan?

    Fuck off.

  28. walto,

    I understood Alan’s comment to be drawing the post/poster distinction. You (erroneously) latched onto the general/specific distinction, and got it backwards. Do you now see the distinction that Alan was drawing?

    phoodoo,
    I think you may have misunderstood Lizzie’s comment “Feel free to comment on them at any other peanut gallery of your choice.”
    I took that comment as meaning “If you cannot abide by the simple rules here, why don’t you go rant somewhere other than TSZ.”
    I wanted to characterize Lizzie’s comment as “Shut up, the grown ups are talking.”, but in light of the right wing reaction to Stoneman Douglas HS students, that put-down no longer carries the heft it once did…

    In other news, I think keiths might be a bot.

  29. DNA_Jock,

    So you think Lizzie was essentially saying, if a moderator moves you comment for any reason they can think of, fuck off if you don’t like it, because its my sight?

    Interesting. And why did she start this site again, because of UD censorship?

  30. phoodoo:
    DNA_Jock,

    So you think Lizzie was essentially saying, if a moderator moves you comment for any reason they can think of, fuck off if you don’t like it, because its my sight?

    No, I do not. I think Lizzie was saying “If you cannot abide by the simple rules here, why don’t you go rant somewhere other than TSZ.” The difference is probably lost on you.

    Interesting.And why did she start this site again, because of UD censorship?

    No. It was about parking your priors. Another distinction that is probably lost on you. That seems to happen a lot.

  31. DNA_Jock: I understood Alan’s comment to be drawing the post/poster distinction. You (erroneously) latched onto the general/specific distinction, and got it backwards. Do you now see the distinction that Alan was drawing?

    Yeah, he says he was trying to make the traditional distinction between post and poster. He didn’t put it clearly, but I believe him.

  32. walto, to DNA_Jock:

    Yeah, he [Alan] says he was trying to make the traditional distinction between post and poster. He didn’t put it clearly, but I believe him.

    He bollixed it:

    PS @ phoodoo

    “The stupidity you continually write rarely has a point.” is not guano-worthy. There is a distinction between a general accusation of stupidity ( e g “God, you’re slow!”) and pointing out a claim or assertion in a comment is “stupid”.

    He was confusing general/specific with post/poster. It’s a continual problem for Alan, even after years as a moderator. The rules, simple though they are, overtax his cognitive abilities. (And that’s setting aside the immaturity, the dishonesty, and the moderation abuses.)

  33. DNA_Jock: No, I do not. I think Lizzie was saying “If you cannot abide by the simple rules here, why don’t you go rant somewhere other than TSZ.” The difference is probably lost on you.

    Interesting.And why did she start this site again, because of UD censorship?

    No. It was about parking your priors. Another distinction that is probably lost on you. That seems to happen a lot.

    Lizzie was saying go to another site if you want to talk about a comment that has been sent to guano. Is that right Jock? But then wouldn’t be about following the rules now would it Jock, it would be about commenting on OTHERS who didn’t follow the rules. I guess that’s a distinction that would be lost on you Jock.

    But how much do you want to bet that IS NOT what she meant, huh? Because I am pretty sure Lizzie is slightly smarter than you are giving her credit. I am pretty sure if she meant, “If you want to comment about a post in guano-go to another site and comment on it, just don’t do it here!” Lizzie probably just would have said THAT.

    Unless of course you think Lizzie frequently is just being sarcastic and hopes everyone will figure it out. You know, like calling the site The Skeptical Zone, when she really means we are not skeptical here at all, we are just sheep.

    And if you believe all that Jock, you are a fucking idiot. Or else you think Lizzie is. But lets ask others, what do they think Lizzie meant when she said “comment about comments in guano can be discussed in any peanut gallery one wishes”. Does she mean NOT HERE!

    How about a vote?

  34. DNA_Jock: Interesting.And why did she start this site again, because of UD censorship?

    No. It was about parking your priors.

    And what in God’s name does parking your priors have to do with starting this web site, or about commenting about posts sent to guano?

    That’s absurd even for someone who doesn’t understand what the hell a generation is.

  35. walto:
    Btw, where is Allan??

    Alive and well. Heard from him last week. He mentioned TSZ has become a little repetitive, lately. Maybe he’ll rejoin the fray, don’t know.

  36. DNA_Jock: I understood Alan’s comment to be drawing the post/poster distinction.

    As if Lizzie, myself and other admins have not made this point many times since the inception of this blog!

  37. DNA_Jock: I think you may have misunderstood Lizzie’s comment “Feel free to comment on them at any other peanut gallery of your choice.” I took that comment as meaning “If you cannot abide by the simple rules here, why don’t you go rant somewhere other than TSZ.”

    Again, I’m mystified how people can misinterpret that. Lizzie is saying in a polite way – “If you don’t like my rules, fuck off elsewhere.”

    Is that clear enough?

Leave a Reply