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.

959 thoughts on “Moderation Issues (5)

  1. Christ, Jock. You’re pinning your hopes on the distinction between the moderators’ job and what Lizzie wanted them to do?

  2. fifth:

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

    So you are claiming that I am really an adherent of Rumraketism. That’s, um, interesting.

    Again, it’s no wonder that you’re hiding behind your Ignore button.

  3. keiths: Lizzie started this site partly in reaction to the censorship at UD.

    Agreed on the partly. She has been very clear that she wanted to create a venue where people could discuss their widely varying views without rancour. That does not mean a free-for-all. Don’t try and rewrite history.

    Why on earth do you and Neil keep pulling these idiot censorship moves, as with J-Mac, phoodoo, and the closing of comments?

    Hyperbole has its place I suppose, but supporting claims is more convincing. How are you getting along with those cites?

  4. keiths: So you are claiming that I am really an adherent of Rumraketism. That’s, um, interesting.

    No I’m claiming that you lied about what you believe in order to gain a debating advantage on a website that prohibits me from calling you on it.

    It’s just despicable and beyond sleazy.

    At the same time you chastise the moderators for not measuring up to some imagined moral code that you would be willing to drop in a instant in order to win an argument.

    I know that because you lied blatantly to gain a debating advantage.

    You are a piece of work.

  5. fifth:

    No I’m claiming that you lied in order to gain a debating advantage on a website that prohibits me from calling you on it.

    Parody is not lying, fifth, and I wouldn’t have objected if you had “called me on it”.

    I would have said “Duh. Of course I’m not serious — I’m mocking your presuppositional Christianity!” And then I would have gone back to playing my role as a Rumraketeer and embarrassing you by giving you a taste of your own medicine.

    You were defeated by your own presuppositional tactics. That’s embarrassing for you, but funny as hell for those who are accustomed to your Godbot responses.

  6. Alan,

    I see that you’re still squirming to avoid answering this:

    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.

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

  7. keiths: You screwed up, pulled a kairosfocus Lizzie ..

    Fixed that fer ya!

    Credit where credit it due. Neil wouldn’t have done had not Lizzie done. Nothing to do with kairosfocus.

  8. keiths: Parody is not lying, fifth

    I know that you were not parodying you were lying.

    That fact is demonstrated because you refused for months to provide a list of the tenents of your made up religion.

    Everyone knows the tenents of Christianity by refusing to provide the tenents of Rumracketism you proved it was not a parody of Christianity but a lie to gain debating advantage here.

    Despicable

    keiths: I wouldn’t have objected if you had “called me on it”.

    You are a liar so I have no reason to believe you when you say this.

    keiths: I would have said “Duh. Of course I’m not serious — I’m mocking your presuppositional Christianity!”

    You had months and you did nothing at all despite my requests . You are a liar plain and simple.

    keiths: You were defeated by your own presuppositional tactics.

    You said your beliefs were secret and for months refused to modify that claim despite many chances to do so.

    That is not is not a “presuppositional tactic” that is a boldface despicable lie.

    Your failure to own up to that is the reason that I will continue to keep you on ignore.

    I have neither the time or the inclination to discuss things with a liar.

    From now on when I notice that you are posting in a manner that leads me to expect that you are responding to something I said I will point out that you are a liar that no one should take anything you say seriously

    I trust the moderators will not object because that is exactly what you are

  9. fifthmonarchyman: I trust the moderators will not object…

    Accusations of dishonesty against other members are off-limits (whoever makes them) in threads other than this one and noyau.

  10. Alan Fox: Accusations of dishonesty against other members are off-limits (whoever makes them) in threads other than this one and noyau.

    There you go keiths.

    You can continue to lie and I can do nothing at all about it.
    You know that yet you lied for months here just to gain a debating advantage

    That is what makes what you did so despicable

    peace

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

    For some reason I feel pleased that I took a leave from TSZ. Just look at what I got to miss!

  12. Mung: For some reason I feel pleased that I took a leave from TSZ. Just look at what I got to miss!

    Lying because you can get away with it and then getting amusement at the results is not pretty in toddlers or retirees.

    That being said there was not a lot going on. I just asked keiths repeatedly to list his new beliefs in exchange for my taking him off ignore and he refused to do so for months.

    Then finally today he says never-mind it was all a just a parody and he would have not minded if I called him on it. He says this on a website where to do so would be a direct violation of the rules.

    This is especially annoying because I have been often accused of violating the rules for supposedly not taking the statements of others about what they believe at face value.

    what a despicable liar

    peace

  13. When I want to call keiths a liar I just do it in Noyau.

    And you’re not the only one who has keiths on Ignore because of his tactics.

  14. fifth:

    You can continue to lie and I can do nothing at all about it.
    You know that yet you lied for months here just to gain a debating advantage

    Parody is not lying.

    Also, don’t blame me for what Alan and Neil do. I don’t want your comments to be guanoed, I’ve never asked for them to be guanoed, and I never will.

    You couldn’t defend your faith against Rumraketism, and you’re embarrassed by that. Understandably.

    Deal with it.

  15. Mung: When I want to call keiths a liar I just do it in Noyau.

    I try to avoid Noyau because I don’t need the aggravation of endless juvenile put downs. I had enough of that in eighth grade.

    I try to avoid Moderation because the Moderators do a great and thankless job and I don’t what to make it any harder than it has to be.

    So I guess ignore is the only option for me.

    that is just sad.

    peace

  16. So Alan is squirming to avoid justifying the closing of comments, and Neil is laying low, hoping for things to blow over.

    Neither one of them is willing to admit the mistake and correct it.

    These are your moderators, folks.

  17. fifth:

    So I guess ignore is the only option for me.

    that is just sad.

    That is sad. You have the power of Jesus on your side, yet you’re hiding behind your Ignore button.

    O ye of little faith.

    Keep the excuses coming. You’re not fooling anyone.

  18. keiths,

    You are willing to blatantly lie for months to gain debating advantage at a place where you knew you could get away with it.

    Because you knew you could get away with it !!!!!!!

    now everyone knows it.

    deal with it.

    I’m done with you

  19. keiths: Why did you close comments on the Paley thread?

    I closed the thread to send keiths into a ridiculous over-the-top rant, and thereby increase traffic to the site.

    And it is working.

    </joking>

  20. keiths: Why did you close comments on the Paley thread?

    It’s bloody freaking obvious why he closed comments. He doesn’t need to explain it.

    Get a clue keiths.

  21. fifth,

    You are willing to blatantly lie to gain debating advantage at a place where you knew you could get away with it.

    Parody is not lying. Are you seriously claiming that I wanted people to believe that I was a Rumraketeer? Good grief, fifth.

    You had your ass handed to you by someone who was parodying your presuppositional Christianity. You’re embarrassed, as you should be.

    Deal with it, and get over it.

  22. Mung:

    It’s bloody freaking obvious why he closed comments.

    Good. Then you can tell us why he closed comments, and he and Alan can confirm whether you got it right, since they are afraid to give their own reasons.

  23. keiths: Then you can tell us why he closed comments

    I already did so up-thread and you even commented on it. So did DNA_Jock. Why are you playing the idiot/fool? It’s unbecoming of you.

    Further, when I pose very simple questions to you, you can’t be bothered to answer. I’m guessing that it’s because you are afraid to.

    keiths: Your opinion is noted, but that isn’t a valid reason for closing comments.

    What would be a valid reason for closing comments?

    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?

  24. Q1: What would be a valid reason for closing comments?

    There is never a valid reason for closing comments. That’s what those horrible people at UD do, and we don’t want to be like them.

    Q2: When do the rules permit closing comments?

    They don’t. Ever.

  25. Mung:

    It’s bloody freaking obvious why he closed comments.

    keiths:

    Good. Then you can tell us why he closed comments, and he and Alan can confirm whether you got it right, since they are afraid to give their own reasons.

    Mung:

    I already did so up-thread and you even commented on it.

    No, you didn’t. You merely stated your opinion of the thread:

    The thread was complete garbage of no value other than to demonstrate what jerks some people can be.

    My question is not “What does Mung think of the thread?” I’m asking why Neil closed comments.

    You claim to know:

    It’s bloody freaking obvious why he closed comments.

    So tell us: Why did Neil close comments?

  26. keiths: Christ, Jock. You’re pinning your hopes on the distinction between the moderators’ job and what Lizzie wanted them to do?

    No keiths, since you have not even tried to support either the assertion that I disputed (“job”), or the assertion that I was willing to accept, arguendo, “answerable”, I don’t need to “pin my hopes” on any distinction. I am pinning my hopes on your inability to support your claims. It’s fun.
    Since you have attempted to support your “not done your homework” claim, and failed miserably, I expect a retraction.

    BTW, keiths, there is an alternative explanation for the moderators` reticence in explaining their decisions to you, and it as nothing to do with them.

    When, in the near future, I cease trolling keiths, I do hope that Mung will continue the Trojan work. It’s been awesome.

  27. Jock:

    I don’t need to “pin my hopes” on any distinction.

    Sure you do, which is why you were at such pains to make it.

    BTW, keiths, there is an alternative explanation for the moderators` reticence in explaining their decisions to you, and it as nothing to do with them.

    Oh, please. If Alan and Neil actually had a good reason for closing comments, they’d be trumpeting it from the rooftops instead of squirming to avoid the question. They know they screwed up; that’s why they’re squirming.

    There’s no rule allowing Neil to close comments, and there certainly wasn’t a need to invent a new rule on the spot. Alan and Neil know that, and they know that the existing rules were perfectly capable of handling the situation.

    Neil screwed up by closing comments, and Alan screwed up by neither objecting to the censorship nor reversing it. Neither will admit their mistake, and neither will fix it.

  28. Keiths,
    Thank you for responding to my posts with repeated unsupported assertions and continued motive-mongering.
    Thank you, too, for this classic interaction with Mung:

    keiths:

    Good. Then you can tell us why he closed comments, and he and Alan can confirm whether you got it right, since they are afraid to give their own reasons.

    Mung:

    I already did so up-thread and you even commented on it.

    No, you didn’t. You merely stated your opinion of the thread:

    The thread was complete garbage of no value other than to demonstrate what jerks some people can be.

    My question is not “What does Mung think of the thread?” I’m asking why Neil closed comments.

    Another item to add to the list of questions-that-keiths-did-not-ask. Can you really not make the connection here?
    Each time you behave this way, you are supporting my point that

    there is an alternative explanation for the moderators` reticence in explaining their decisions to you, and it as nothing to do with them

    Keep up the good work.
    But you still owe me a retraction.

  29. DNA_Jock: I expect a retraction.

    Kind of an absurd expectation, no?

    BTW, “motive mongering” is a good description of keiths’ M.O.: I hadn’t ever been able to categorize it myself, and that really nails it.

    To his “credit,” I suppose, posts of those nature are weirdly unpleasant, as I guess he must realize, and he’s driven away a couple of former participants with them. If I were king, that might be something else I’d make guanoable. They are ad hom, but in a somewhat disguised way.

  30. DNA_Jock: When, in the near future, I cease trolling keiths, I do hope that Mung will continue the Trojan work. It’s been awesome.

    It’s addictive. And perversely pleasurable. How can someone who is so smart be so clueless? Surely it is because they intend to be that way.

    Right keiths?

  31. Classic keiths logic.

    My opinion of the thread could not possibly be the reason why Neil closed comments on it. Now is that because what I wrote came after the thread had already been closed or is it because Neil could not possible have been thinking the same thing about the thread, or something very close to it?

    Or as Jock put it right after quoting my comment:

    I think you might be right about that. It was not conducive to raising the general tone, building bridges, promoting the goals of this site, … that kinda stuff.

    And yet keiths pretends that no reasons have been given for why Neil might have closed it.

    keiths wrote:

    They know they can’t justify the closing of comments on the Paley thread, so they don’t even bother trying.

    And I immediately offered up a reply to that:

    The thread was complete garbage of no value other than to demonstrate what jerks some people can be.

    To which keiths responded:

    Your opinion is noted, but that isn’t a valid reason for closing comments.

    I’ll leave it up to the readers to decide whether I was offering up my opinion about the thread or offering up a reason why it was closed, or both, or whether it really matters.

    Whether the reason was “valid” or not is irrelevant.

    keiths:

    Then you can tell us why he closed comments, and he and Alan can confirm whether you got it right, since they are afraid to give their own reasons.

    I already did that. So did Jock. It’s bloody freaking obvious why.

    Get a clue.

  32. DNA_Jock: And then there’s the awkward fact…

    Thanks for pointing that out to me!

    So the author of the thread asked for comments to be guanoed or for the
    OP to be deleted. In response, instead, Neil closed comments.

    What on earth could Neil’s reason for closing comments have been?

    Let’s thank Tom for his opinion that the comments were insulting, accumulating, and were insults which were denigrating earnestly held beliefs and further:

    I had no intention of inciting hatred, and do not desire to have my name associated with the puerile hate-filled comments already cluttering this offering.

    FFS keiths. Grow up.

  33. …although I’m not entirely convinced Tom was being serious there, but (of course) keiths took him as being serious, which is what matters.

  34. So the author of the thread asked for comments to be guanoed or for the
    OP to be deleted. In response, instead, Neil closed comments.

    What on earth could Neil’s reason for closing comments have been?

    Damn, Mung. Are you really this slow?

    I know that Neil closed comments in response to Tom. The question is why, given that there’s nothing in the rules permitting such an action, nor any justification for inventing such a rule on the spot.

    Neil screwed up. He knows it, which is why he’s squirming to avoid explaining himself. Ditto for Alan. As bad as the guilty silence makes them look, they know that they’d look even worse if they actually tried to justify their actions.

    It was another dumb and illegitimate censorship move from two moderators with a history of dumb and illegitimate censorship moves.

    They know they screwed up, and they refuse to fix their mistake.

    It’s classic Alan and Neil.

    Meanwhile the whole kerfuffle could have been avoided if Neil had simply had enough wisdom to leave the thread alone, and enough spine to say to Tom “your desire for censorship is not a reason for me to act.” If Neil had done his job, in other words.

  35. As if “citations” had anything to do with your screwups and your refusal to fix them.

    Do your job, Alan.

  36. Alan,

    You’ve written:

    And admins are a check on each other. I’m happy to take advice from Neil if he thinks any of my actions are unwarranted or wrong and I’m sure Neil (I hope at least) would reciprocate.

    Neil screwed up by closing comments. You’re supposed to be a check on him, not a rubber stamp. You’ve failed again.

    Show some spine, and some integrity, and do your job for a change.

  37. keiths: You’re supposed to be a check on him, not a rubber stamp.

    Where is this written? Recall that I am only in a caretaker position currently. Neil is sole arbiter*. As a matter of fact it was fait accompli when I became aware of the little contre-temps you’ve stirred up. I might have acted differently, just guanoed a few comments but, with hindsight, Neil’s action seems proportional.

    Citations?

    *Soon to be resolved, inshallah!

Leave a Reply