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.
keiths:
fifth:
No, you said this:
You were claiming not to know whether I was serious about abandoning my atheism. It was an obvious lie, and you got caught.
Your true colors are showing.
fmm wrote:
No, the Great Green Arkleseizure is precisely equivalent to Christianity in its presuppositional support. The tenets differ somewhat, in particular the bits about the apple, Laban and Leah, and the bit about the white hanky.
Well, the better Christian belief is at justifying knowledge, the closer it gets to Jatravartid belief, but you are on the right track there…
Because he is.
That’s weak. The GGA is hexasyllabic. Each syllable can vouch for the omniscience of the other five.
Aseity, they do as a team though. Unlike the Trinity, they are coherent.
Likewise.
Bless you.
I Presuppose the God of the Bible. Than means I presuppose the truth of God’s word all of it .
The bits about Laban and Leah are part of what I presuppose. There is nothing about an apple or a white hanky but there is stuff about a fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil and a scarlet cord in a window.
Why does he need 5 rather than 3 or 11?
How can a syllable vouch for anything? In my experience vouching is something only persons can do
If they need all 5 to be Asey how can individual syllables on their own know anything for certain?
This is going to be fun 😉
peace
First off, it’s 6, not 5 (man is 5…).
Secondly, GGA does not need to be 6; he just is. Think, man!
Thirdly, you have conflated aseity with knowledge; I guess the GGA has not revealed the distinction to you.
Your experience is necessarily limited to that which the GGA has revealed to you.
Bless you.
So he could be 5 or 3 and still be the only fount of knowledge?
Does that mean that the number of syllables is immaterial to his claim to be the only fount of knowledge? Why is 6 better than one in that case?
Why even bring up the number of syllables if it does not make any difference?
No I’m not conflating aseity with knowledge I’m saying that aseity is necessary if you are the only fount of knowledge. If you are not asey you depend on someone or something else.
Sure, but the question is how does GGA know the things it reveals. You haven’t explained that.
something like this for instance
Knowledge is justified true belief
The Christian God has knowledge because each person is justified in believing things that the others reveal to him and truth is defined as what God believes.
Is GGA’s knowledge like that? Why exactly?
peace
PS I can do this all day 😉
Exactly so. God believes rape is good, rape is good. God believes that slavery is good, then slavery is good.
Fuck your God.
To what end? What has any of this ever achieved?
Can I remind our esteemed members that this thread, quaintly titled “Moderation Issues” is for raising issues about moderation. There is a thread, specifically tailored to the needs of those wishing to have a “gloves-off” discussion, where only basic rules (no porn, no spam, no outing) apply. It’s called “Noyau”.
To determine if our presuppositions are up to the task we demand of them of course.
peace
understood. Might I suggest that if DNA Jock thinks he has invented a being worthy of the title god that he put his thoughts together and start a thread to that end.
I would say that I’m pretty busy right now with the multiple threads OMagain has started that are specifically dedicated to me and my ideas so my participation might be more sporadic than I’d like for a while
peace
Hi Alan,
I was wondering if the normal rules of moderation applied on this particular thread. Thanks very much for the clarification.
vjtorley,
Hi Vincent
The minimal rules apply in the “Moderation Issues” thread so as not to handicap discussion of moderation issues. Lizzie has made it clear that she wishes only moderation issues to be raised here. The “Noyau” thread is for anyone to rant, flame or blow off steam as the mood takes them.
Sorry about the thread-jack. It started out about moderation.
Apologies to all.
The only reason this conversation is even taking place in “Moderation Issues” is because fifth is hiding behind his Ignore button.
Fifth, to me:
And:
fifth:
walto:
fifth:
As you can see, fifth started the discussion here precisely because he is hiding behind his Ignore button.
So you say but you are a liar.
I would say that the reason the discussion started is because of the confluence of your deceit and the rule against me calling you on it made it necessary.
Now that you have acknowledged that you are unwilling to promise not to lie here in the future. There is no reason to continue it.
peace
fifth:
Parody is not deceit, and nothing in the rules prevents you from “calling me on it”.
And here’s the funny thing: even if your accusation weren’t false, your excuse would still be bogus. Nothing requires you to respond to my comments, whether or not you have me on Ignore.
Putting me on Ignore is just an excuse, as I explained earlier:
@moderators or admins:
Removing the ignore-function sounds like a good idea.
How so?
Well, the argument could be made that the ignore function is diametrically opposed to the goals of this site. To put a poster on ignore is to enshrine your prior that they have nothing of any worth to say (however well supported that prior might be…).
I suspect, however, that Popohummel may have been motivated by fmm’s publicizing the claim that he has put keiths on ignore (and other examples of this “That’s the last straw! I am putting you [back] on ignore, you unworthy git!” ploy) and his added effort spent repeating the ‘ignored’ poster’s comments.
Announcing that one is putting a poster on ignore is pretty much the equivalent of the [fingers in ears] “Nyah nyah ny nyah nyah, I can’t hear you!”. So it is all rather juvenile and unbecoming. The user of such a ploy is publicly admitting that they are not aligned with the goals of this site.
Aha! Perhaps then, [rubs hands together fiendishly] there is a benefit to having an ignore function after all, since it offers posters the opportunity to demonstrate their true colors..
Mwahahaha!
@walto: DNA_Jock has put it very nicely.
The ignore-function makes it easy for users to sabotage a discussion. Just look at fifth’s “non-algorithmic” thread, where fifth is doing exactly that:
Keiths makes some points I agree with. I have to repost them quoting keiths, so fifth can see them. And fifth responds to the points. So fifth is actually NOT ignoring keiths. He has just put him on an ignore list — a list which forbids him from seing comment-entries posted by a user with the id “keiths”.
Walto, in general just think of a real face-to-face discussion of several people where A decided to ignore anything B said. It destroys the discussion for everyone. A is blabbering his arguments and when B is presenting counter-arguments A is (to quote DNA_Jock) putting his fingers in ears: “Nyah nyah ny nyah nyah, I can’t hear you!”. C has now to repeat the counter-arguments to A. Otherwise it effectively stops the discussion.
I much preferred the old Ignore function, when you could ignore one person in all discussions across the whole site. The new version is thread-specific, so even if you ignore someone in one thread because you know that it’s a waste of your time to engage with them, you then have to click ‘ignore’ on all the other threads or risk failing a saving throw vs willpower and getting dragged into the same silliness all over again.
Agreed — it’s terribly passive aggressive and frankly immature to make a show of announcing that one is ignoring other commentators. (And yes, I’m aware that I do this too.) The best thing is to ignore others without saying so. Just disengage and walk away.
KN,
Not true. If you ignore someone in one thread, that action affects other threads too.
The only exceptions I know of are Noyau and the Moderation Issues thread. For some odd reason Alan decided that the Ignore function should be disabled in those two threads. It makes no sense to me.
A comment of mine from October:
Oh! I didn’t know that! Good to know!
@KN:
If you don’t want to engage with someone, don’t. Why is there a need for an ignore-list? (Be aware: if you partake in a discussion including this person, you might be sabotaging the discussion, as explained above.)
As for why the Ignore function is disabled in this thread (Moderation Issues 5) when it was enabled in Moderation Issues 4, that appears to be yet another Alan screwup.
When he started Moderation Issues 4, he wrote:
Recall that after his disgrace in the ALurker affair, Alan attempted to sweep the evidence under the rug by closing comments on Moderation Issues 4 and starting Moderation Issues 5. It was a flagrant abuse of his moderator privileges.
Anyway, my guess is that when he started the new thread, he forgot to make the same adjustment to it that he had made to Moderation Issues 4 — one that would have enabled the Ignore feature.
What is the difference between not reading someone’s post by skipping over it and not reading it because it is not there? If the poster is prolific the ignore function just cleans up the thread improving the reading experience.
The risk is the same whether the software does the ignoring or the person.
A screwup which benefits you in your quest to engage Fifth.
Sort of agree. On the other hand, it saves the other person ignored from wasting his time trying to engage.
newton:
It doesn’t benefit me. I prevail whether or not fifth engages me:
keiths, to fifth:
It’s perfectly fine with me if fifth keeps me on Ignore. It makes him look pitiful and fearful, and it exposes the weakness of his faith.
Second, even if it did benefit me, so what? Alan’s screwup is still a screwup.
And why anyone should need an ignore button to do that is beyond me. But it available on a purely voluntary basis for those who wish to avail themselves. As is TSZ. Participate, don’t participate, the choice is up to any member!
As a point of information, the ignore button works in threads headed by an OP – a “post” – and not in threads started as a “page”. As it doesn’t make sense (to me, anyway) that anyone posting in “Noyau” would need to use the ignore button there, it’s left as-is. I changed “sandbox” from a page to a post so the ignore button does work there.
As another point of information, the previous “ignore commenter” plugin broke the formatting so that comments didn’t appear in frames. Lizzie mentioned she found comments difficult to read without that formatting, so I swapped to the new “ignore commenter” plugin because it doesn’t disturb the formatting.
ETA clarity
Alan,
Your decision makes no sense whatsoever. If someone is ignoring a commenter in all the other threads, why assume that they don’t want to do so in Noyau? Why prevent them from doing so?
Your judgment is the worst.
Alternately it exposes his lack of interest in what you are saying.
Of course you do.
People forget that you are the great and powerful!
I see this a bit differently, myself. I take the ignore function to be what we have been given here instead of decent moderation. (That’s not meant to be an attack on the moderators, but on the insufficient number of them and the weak and often vague rules they have to work with.) This place is at times a bit of a cesspool, and since moderation can’t or won’t do anything about it, we’ve been given a sort of private moderation tool.
I’ll give you an example. I recently posted an ad hom. I said to keiths, “you’re hilarious.” That kind of stuff is NEVER swept here. It likely seems innocuous and probably is. But again, when keiths refused to answer a question I asked on some thread awhile back I responded by posting that question over and over again at least a half-dozen times. That behavior is less innocuous: certainly, it’s even more obnoxious than keiths’ refusal to answer. But there’s no rule to prevent it–or considerably worse–behavior.
In a word, this is not a civil discussion site, whatever Lizzie may have wanted. It’s–at least at times–a shithole that any number of decent discussants will not (and have not) put up with. Not only do some people not want to be attacked themselves with insults or snarks, they don’t really want to see it wherever they turn their heads. So, in their Patrickian/keithsian “moral relativism,” the powers that be here came up with a libertarian solution. Since nobody may be warned or banned and some people even LIKE obnoxious behavior, they decided to let everyone be their own administrator. You know, no type of internet behavior is REALLY better than any other–it’s all just personal taste–so they simply let people do their own personal moderating. If that seems like putting hands over one’s ears and yelling “I CAN’T HEAR YOU” to some participants–it’s neither force nor fraud, so it’s just too bad for people who don’t like it. Ayn Rand and Patrick would be OK with it, so everybody here will have to as well. It’s what perfect worlds look like to libertarians.
That’s the idea here, I guess. I mean, even with a ten-strike cool off period rule, keiths would have been banned here at least 100 times if this were really a civil site, and I’d have been banned half that many times myself. J-mac’s and Byer’s senseless posts would all have been placed in a Cloud Cuckoo Land area, and many other changes would have to have been made too. We’re not getting any of that though, and the ignore function is at least something.
FWIW, I can’t seem to keep anybody on ignore myself, though I have tried.
newton:
keiths:
walto:
As if I’d need to be “great and powerful” to prevail over fifth, of all people.
walto,
I had long since answered your question, as any reasonable person reading the thread could see.
You chose to pretend otherwise. You have a bad habit of making shit up when things aren’t going well for you.
Things have always gone pretty well for me here, thanks. I don’t include convincing you in my criteria. For reasons that I’m sure are pretty obvious to everybody who participates at TSZ, nobody should ever include that.
I’m sympathetic to much that you say.
The main problem with TSZ is Lizzie’s absence which leaves the site in limbo. I’ve been in sporadic contact with Lizzie and, as you know, we have new admins in waiting, just needing Lizzie to make a formal announcement.
What would also help is a re-think and a restatement, especially an update to include later amendments, of the rules. I doubt Lizzie is looking forward to that, though she could delegate.
Speaking personally, I’m struggling to give a fuck currently. There was a time when the dilution effect of a diverse membership reduced the negative effect of the odd obno (to use your phrase) commenter. Now, not so much.
walto,
If that were true, you wouldn’t feel the need to lie about your opponents.
It isn’t the end of the world when someone out-argues you or points out a mistake you’ve made, walto. Learn to deal with that instead of falling apart.
Alan:
Let’s hope they’ve learned what not to do from your disastrous example of incompetence, dishonesty, and moderation abuses.
Example? Surely you mean examples! If you are going to lie, tell a big one! (and often). 🙂
Alan,
You’re seriously claiming that you haven’t been incompetent and dishonest, and that you haven’t abused your moderation privileges?
If you like. Let’s hear your big lie. For added bonus points, let’s have some self-quoting!
Alan:
I’m asking you:
You’re asking if I still beat my wife. You support your claims if you like. If you can do it without serious misrepresentation, distortion and outright lying, go ahead. It’s a rainy afternoon.
Alan:
No, it’s nothing like that. I’m asking the following:
If you answer ‘yes’, then you are claiming that you haven’t been incompetent and dishonest and that you haven’t abused your moderation privileges. Are you willing to make that (obviously false) claim?