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. Entropy:

    These guys are doing moderation. Moderation is not easy.

    Please explain to me what is so difficult about not closing comments on a thread, when the rules don’t permit it. Also, please explain to me why it is so difficult to tell the readers why comments were closed. Alan and Neil are grown men, and you think that’s too much to ask of them?

    Life goes on. Let it go. Keep having fun regardless.

    I am having fun. TSZ is a great place, and it has the potential to be even better. That’s what makes it worth protecting!

    There’s no reason for a site as valuable as TSZ to be saddled with moderators as bad as Alan and Neil.

  2. keiths: Lizzie wanted the moderators to be answerable to the commenters, and it’s one of the reasons she created the Moderation Issues thread.

    Can’t find anything Lizzie has posted here that supports that assertion. Can you link to it?

  3. keiths: There’s no reason for a site as valuable as TSZ to be saddled with moderators as bad as Alan and Neil.

    Let me remind you again this is Lizzie’s blog. She has described it as a benign dictatorship. She has remarked that people who wish to complain about moderating decisions can do so. I can find no undertaking from her that she would always explain or justify her decisions. She has also remarked that in her absence, she expects admins to use their own initiative – be proactive.

    In the case of closing a thread to further comments, it’s certainly a better solution than deleting the thread.

  4. keiths: Alan and Neil both know that they are supposed to respond to moderation complaints and justify their actions.

    In fact, it is in the document they signed when they agreed to become admins.

    Now where did I put my copy of that …

  5. keiths: Please explain to me what is so difficult about not closing comments on a thread, when the rules don’t permit it.

    When do the rules permit closing comments?

    keiths: There’s no reason for a site as valuable as TSZ to be saddled with moderators as bad as Alan and Neil.

    And Elizabeth.

  6. Alan,

    Let me remind you again this is Lizzie’s blog.

    Exactly. So why do you ignore her rules and make up your own?

    She has also remarked that in her absence, she expects admins to use their own initiative – be proactive.

    The Paley thread wasn’t an emergency, and it didn’t demand the creation of a new rule. What is it with your repeated moderation overreactions?

    In the case of closing a thread to further comments, it’s certainly a better solution than deleting the thread.

    Why do either? Why didn’t you guys leave the thread alone?

  7. Alan Fox: In the case of closing a thread to further comments, it’s certainly a better solution than deleting the thread.

    And, after all, it was Elizabeth who set the precedent. If it’s ok for Elizabeth it’s ok for Alan and Neil.

  8. Neil,

    Why did you close comments on the Paley thread?

    Alan,

    Why did you rubber-stamp Neil’s action?

  9. Mung,

    And, after all, it was Elizabeth who set the precedent.

    Lizzie at least offered a reason, though I think it was a bad one.

  10. Keiths,

    Just a reminder, I check this thread from time to time. You could easily give a summary of your beliefs here if you chose to.

    As you know until you do I just don’t see how I can follow the rule to assume you are posting in good faith.

    peace

  11. fifth:

    Just a reminder, I check this thread from time to time. You could easily give a summary of your beliefs here if you chose to.

    Keep making excuses for hiding behind your ‘Ignore’ button, fifth. It brings great glory to Jesus.

  12. Alan,

    No such action is required. No such action was taken.

    You’ve told us that moderators are a check on each other.

    You neither objected to, nor reversed, Neil’s decision. Do you think it was justified? If so, why, specifically?

  13. keiths: It brings great glory to Jesus.

    I don’t know about that but it does make me happy when I can follow the rules.

    It’s the polite thing to do.

    It would also I think, be polite to let me know what you actually believe instead of claiming to hold to mutually exclusive axioms at the same time.

    peace

  14. keiths: You’ve told us that moderators are a check on each other.

    Can I have a citation for that too?

    You neither objected to, nor reversed, Neil’s decision.

    I commented on Neil’s decision.

    Do you think it was justified? If so, why, specifically?

    I think Neil’s action was acceptable in the particular circumstances. And Neil is perfectly justified in acting as he has by the power vested in him by Lizzie. He was being proactive. It is a dictatorship, here, though a benign one. As I keep saying, don’t like it, moan directly to Lizzie. Other options are open to you.

  15. fifth,

    It has nothing to do with politeness, and everything to do with fear. With the great power of Jesus on your side, you are hiding behind your Ignore button.

    That says something about your supposed faith, doesn’t it?

    As for what I believe, you already know that I’m an atheist. I’ve also made it explicit:

    You had your ass handed to you by an atheist pretending to be a follower of the fake religion of Rumraketism. That’s right. You couldn’t even defend Christianity against a fake religion. That’s gotta sting.

    If you intend to keep hiding, you’ll need to find another excuse.

  16. keiths: That’s right. You couldn’t even defend Christianity against a fake religion.

    That’s funny. Aren’t all other religions fake?

    keiths: It brings great glory to Jesus.

    Now I’m really going to have to put you back on Ignore.

  17. That’s funny. Aren’t all other religions fake?

    No. They’re wrong, but not fake. Zoroastrianism is a real religion, Mung.

  18. keiths: You had your ass handed to you by an atheist pretending to be a follower of the fake religion of Rumraketism.

    So you were pretending? Being dishonest?
    You really did not believe the things you said you believed?
    Why then did you claim to believe them?
    Do you do this sort of thing often?

    How do I know when you are telling the truth here instead of lying to try and get an advantage?

    Are you lying now?
    Can I expect the same behavior from other atheists?

    peace

  19. Alan,

    Anyone who wants to comment on the Paley thread should be free to do so. You and Neil are preventing that. Why, specifically?

    Closing comments is the kind of shit kairosfocus pulls, fercrissakes. What is wrong with you guys?

  20. fifth,

    So your defense is “I was too dumb to figure out that you weren’t really a follower of Rumraket”?

  21. keiths: Anyone who wants to comment on the Paley thread should be free to do so.

    This is true:

    You and Neil are preventing that.

    This is false. For here you are, commenting on it, and neither Alan nor Neil is preventing you.

    Think, keiths.

  22. keiths: So your defense is “I was too dumb to figure out that you weren’t really a follower of Rumraket”?

    No my “defense” is that if you are willing to lie simply try to gain a debate advantage there is no way I can follow the rule to assume you are posting in good faith and it’s really impossible to dialogue with you here at all.

    And to point out that if Rumracketism does not actually exist then it is no challenge to Christianity whatsoever.

    peace

  23. keiths: Anyone who wants to comment on the Paley thread should be free to do so.

    I think you fundamentally misunderstand the raison d’être of TSZ. Why not look back in the early pages of the “rules” thread at some of Lizzie’s comments expanding on her aims while you are looking up cites to those, as yet, unsupported assertions of yours.

  24. Mung:

    This is false. For here you are, commenting on it, and neither Alan nor Neil is preventing you.

    As if you didn’t know that “commenting on the Paley thread” meant “commenting on the Paley thread.”

    Now I’m really going to have to put you back on Ignore.

    Please do, so that people won’t have to read your inane responses to my comments.

  25. Alan,

    You’re still avoiding the issue. Why, specifically, do you think it was appropriate for Neil to close comments on the Paley thread?

    “Because he decided to” is not responsive to the question.

    It’s pretty obvious that you and Neil can’t justify his decision, or you would have done so already.

    It was yet another moderation screwup.

  26. fifth,

    No my “defense” is that if you are willing to lie simply try to gain a debate advantage there is no way I can follow the rule to assume you are posting in good faith and it’s really impossible to dialogue with you here at all.

    It’s not lying to mockingly defending Rumraketism, an amusing analogue of presuppositionalist Christianity, as you know perfectly well. It’s parody, and it’s an effective form of mockery. You couldn’t even defend your own presuppositional Christianity against a fake presuppositionalist religion!

    Manufacture whatever excuses you like. People can figure out the real reason you’re hiding behind your Ignore button.

  27. Alan,

    Good moderators correct their mistakes. Neither you nor Neil can justify the closing of comments on the Paley thread.

    Why haven’t you reversed it?

    You’re not serving TSZ. You’re serving yourselves, as usual.

  28. keiths: Good moderators correct their mistakes.

    Good members support their assertions, don’t they? Come on, Keiths, citations?

  29. This is as close as Alan will come to admitting that he can’t justify Neil’s action.

    And Neil’s silence serves the same role.

    If you can’t justify it, why won’t you reverse it?

  30. keiths: If you can’t justify it, why won’t you reverse it?

    I’ve always liked these:

    1. Because I can.

    2. Because I don’t want to.

  31. You made some claims, Keiths. Can you support the claim that

    Lizzie wanted the moderators to be answerable to the commenters, and it’s one of the reasons she created the Moderation Issues thread.

    with a citation?
    And apparently:

    You’ve [Alan Fox] told us that moderators are a check on each other.

    A reference for this?

  32. Where’s Patrick when you need him.

    Patrick would reverse Neil and force keiths to support his claims or retract them.

  33. Alan,

    This is the Moderation Issues thread, and we are talking about a moderation decision that you and Neil made.

    Neither of you can justify the closing of comments. Why won’t you reverse that action?

    You are desperately trying to change the subject to my “citations”, as if that should make a difference. But why? The fact that you and Neil can’t justify your action has nothing to do with any “citations”.

    You screwed up, pulled a kairosfocus, and closed comments on a thread that should have remained open. It was your mistake, and it’s your responsibility, as moderators, to correct it.

    Do your job.

  34. Alan,

    Remember your W(h)ine Cellar screwup? You refused to acknowledge your mistake and refused to clean up after yourself. Because of your refusal, Lizzie had to step in and clean up for you.

    You keep screwing up, and you keep refusing to admit and correct your mistakes.

    If you refuse to correct your mistakes, then you shouldn’t be moderating in the first place.

    TSZ does fine when you and Neil are absent. Take that to heart and stop meddling. There was no reason to close comments on the Paley thread. We don’t need the two of you running around and pulling idiot kairosfocus moves like that.

    Lizzie started this site partly in reaction to the censorship at UD. Why on earth do you and Neil keep pulling these idiot censorship moves, as with J-Mac, phoodoo, and the closing of comments?

  35. keiths: It’s parody, and it’s an effective form of mockery.

    If you wanted to mock Christianity by claiming that it was just like a nonsense religion you would have been able to show that Rumracketism was just like Christianity when I asked you to provide a summary of it’s tenets.

    Instead when I asked you said they were secret.

    So I am forced to conclude one of three things

    1) You were mocking a made up religion for some unknown reason

    2) To get a debating advantage you were claiming to believe something you don’t actually believe on a website that forbids me to even question such a claim.

    or

    3) you are lying right now!!

    peace

    PS Because you have shown no remorse for your admitted deception I have no choice but to assume that you are quite possibly lying every single time you comment on this website

  36. Oh dear, keiths,
    Please slow down and pay attention. When you rush to judgement, you make mistakes. Here’s one small example:
    You accused me of “not doing my homework” because I disagreed with your assertion
    (A)

    It’s Alan and Neil’s job to explain their moderation decisions when questioned.

    You subsequently followed up with the weaker assertion
    (B)

    Lizzie wanted the moderators to be answerable to the commenters,

    I asked you to support these two assertions with citations.
    When I did so, I very clearly distinguished between the weaker assertion (B), which I was even willing to grant arguendo, and the “job” assertion, which was the one I had disputed, the cause of your accusation. I pointed out that, to support your claim that I had not done my homework, you needed to produce support for claim (A), the “job” assertion.
    Your response: to claim that my “I think you may be correct in this, but I’d like to see your evidence.”, referring to assertion (B), confirmed that I “had not done my homework”.
    Wrong assertion, kiddo. You need to support the

    It’s Alan and Neil’s job to explain their moderation decisions when questioned.

    assertion.
    Since you cannot, I insist that you retract your “homework” slander.

  37. fifth,

    I gave you a taste of your own medicine, and you didn’t like it. I used the same bogus presuppositional tactics to defend Rumraketism that you use to defend Christianity.

    That put you in an embarrassing position: You could either acknowledge the superiority of Rumraketism, or admit that the tactics I was using to defend Rumraketism — the same tactics that you use to defend Christianity — were bogus, thus undermining your own case.

    Your struggle was amusing to watch.

    As I said, keep making excuses for hiding behind your Ignore button. People can figure out the real reason. It’s obvious.

  38. fifth:

    PS Because you have shown no remorse for your admitted deception I have no choice but to assume that you are quite possibly lying every single time you comment on this website

    “My admitted deception”? You are seriously claiming that you were deceived by an obvious parody?

    Damn, fifth. If you are really that slow, then no wonder you are hiding behind your Ignore button.

  39. keiths: I gave you a taste of your own medicine, and you didn’t like it.

    no you lied because you knew I could not call you on it.

    keiths: I used the same bogus presuppositional tactics to defend Rumraketism that you use to defend Christianity.

    No you said that your beliefs were secret in order gain a debating advantage. That is the opposite of presupositionalism which seeks to examine our hidden beliefs.

    Let’s face it you will do anything at all to win including lie.

    keiths: Your struggle was amusing to watch.

    Someone who would lie and then get their giggles because they cold not be called on it is a despicable…….. liar.

  40. keiths: Parody is not lying, fifth.

    Who were you parodying when you refused for months to share the beliefs of your new secret religion?

    I really have no choice but to conclude that you are lying when you say that it was a parody.

    That is because you are an admitted unremorseful liar

    peace

Leave a Reply

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