Moderation Issues (6)

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.

825 thoughts on “Moderation Issues (6)

  1. phoodoo: nd are you really going to try to defend Alan’s ridiculous excuse that its Ok to insult Christians but not Jews?

    I’ve never made any such statement. Please stop misrepresenting me.

    Oh you didn’t say that huh? Ok, then is it Ok to insult Christians here or not? Yes or No?

    I can certainly understand why you don’t want too many people to read the embarrassing stains you have left on this site, by continuously weaseling out of trying to answer such a simple question. Your true personality has been shown, and its pretty ugly. But you seem to care much more about yourself than about this site. Patrick, who was not the best of moderators here, at least tried to be honest. That seems to be of no concern with you. I surely doubt that Lizzie could be proud of your antics. You have already ran off a number of regular poster here Alan, simply for your own grudges.

    So once and for all, is it Ok to insult Christians here or not Alan? Is it Ok to insult Jews here or not Alan? Why does it pain you so much to help this site and simply answer yes or no. Let people decide for themselves your level of integrity. Stop with the “wel, you know, its not Ok to insult members, and well, you know Jews are an ethnic group, and well, I will reserve judgement bullshit..”

    They are Yes or No questions. WE all know how much the site relies on your being able to maintain that it is OK to insult Christians.

  2. I propose a new solution for TSZ. Since Alan is incapable of being honest, and also incapable of explaining his contradiction of allowing insults to Christians, but then saying it is against the rules to insult Jews, it is quite clear that all he is really trying to do is maintain his assault against Christianity, and that is the sole purpose of this website. It is not a free discussion like Lizzie said she wanted, and Alan is now admitting this.

    So since we do have a moderator who many feel does not have the same anti-theist motivations such as Alan, Jock and Neil, why don’t they simply let Mung make decision regarding the non-atheist posters. Or do they not trust Mung? What is the point of having Mung as a moderator, if he is just a token, with no authority? If you believe his judgment to be fair and sound, and its clear Alan is no longer capable of being rational, and has completely lost the trust of those who don’t agree with his worldview, then the solution is simple. Alan, knock yourself out moderating your fellow atheists. Jock and Neil, you can do the same (you don’t seem to mind them calling people here imbeciles and trolls anyway, so go ahead let them continue to preach for you).

    But if this site ever wants to call itself legitimate and not a mouthpiece for anti-Christianity, then let someone non-biased moderate those who disagree with you. Alan has already shown in the keiths debacle as well as the Joe debacle, as well as banning me for quoting other posters, that he can’t keep his personal feelings out of things.

    So unless Mung is just a token here, then let him do his job and stay out of it. Don’t worry, that way your side can still do all the Christian bashing you want. You won’t lose that important power you crave so desperately.

  3. Neil Rickert:
    phoodoo,

    Mung has the same authority as other admins.And, like other admins, he eats, sleeps, has things to attend to other than TSZ.

    So what, is there some time constraint? He can simply attend to the issues when he is online.

    You often complain that the reason you don’t move things is because you didn’t see them in time. You know, like when Omagain just called J-Mac a troll for instance, just yesterday and you did nothing? Nothing is preventing you from doing something about that now, and also warning him that he is in danger of being banned, right?

    Or like when just yesterday Entropy went on his whole tirade about how “one side” is just full of imbeciles who lack the mental abilities to understand ideas. Now, I am not sure what “one side” he was referring to, it my have been Christians, and it may have been Jews, who can really say for sure. But you certainly could have warned him about being banned, after all it was only yesterday, but you didn’t do that right?

    Or perhaps you were sure he was talking about Christians, and not Jews, and so that is why you didn’t warn him. You know, like you warned me, for simply asking what someone’s religious choice was. You remember that right, it was only today?

    So let’s make excuses about time, huh Neil?

  4. Maybe you would like to take a stab at answering why its OK to make fun of Christians but not Jews here Neil, since Alan has lost any sense of decency?

  5. Was Jesus a racist and an anti-Semite?
    If he joined this blog, would he be considered a racist and anti-Semite?
    Didn’t he call some of the Jews an offspring of vipers?

    https://biblehub.com/matthew/23-33.htm

    I guess he was the founder of Christianity but not a real Christian???

  6. J-Mac: Was Jesus a racist and an anti-Semite?

    Maybe the person who wrote the story about Jesus was.

    If he joined this blog, would he be considered a racist and anti-Semite?
    Didn’t he call some of the Jews an offspring of vipers?

    It would depend on the substance of his charge, since He was member of the Judaic religion his opinion might have more weight than someone telling jokes about stereotypes of Jews.

  7. J-Mac: I guess he was the founder of Christianity but not a real Christian???

    It is possible I guess if He preached one way and acted another ,one could say He was not living up to the ethos He preached. So unless a true Christian is a hypocrite, then yes, you might say that.

  8. phoodoo: So once and for all, is it Ok to insult Christians here or not Alan?

    How clear do I need to be. It is not OK to insult fellow members here, be they Christian or not. Comments containing personal insults should be moved to guano.

  9. Alan Fox: How clear do I need to be. It is not OK to insult fellow members here, be they Christian or not. Comments containing personal insults should be moved to guano.

    I didn’t ask you about fellow members, I asked you about insulting Christians as a whole. Why are you so afraid to answer? Why a double standard for Christians compared to Jews?

    Allan has claimed that many Christians ON THIS SITE are assholes. Is that insulting members?

    Entropy has said that he has learned here, that many on the other side of his worldview are imbecilities, with diminished mental capacity. Still no problem right?

    Be brave Alan, answer the question, you know what it is.

    I think you better let Mung decide Alan. You are far too compromised ethically Alan.

    Happy Hanukkah

  10. phoodoo: I didn’t ask you about fellow members, I asked you about insulting Christians as a whole.

    You’ve equivocated between “is it Ok to insult Christians here or not Alan” and other phrasing open to more than one interpretation. Use of “here” implies “at TSZ”.

    Let’s see if we can cover all bases.

    There is no specific rule against insulting any group in general. So no rule against Christians, Buddhists, Muslims, Jews, short people.

    There is a specific rule against insulting fellow members at TSZ that applies regardless of the faith or beliefs of particular members.

    There is a specific rule against racism. Use of hate speech, encitement to violence, discrimination where these are proscribed in law is not, under any circumstances permitted at TSZ. Such content will be deleted without discussion and perpetrators banned.

    Judgement as to what constitutes insult, hate speech, racism, should that occur at TSZ, is entirely in the discretion of the site owner as represented by her admins.

    Whilst you can continue to pretend not to grasp this, confine your comments on the matter here in the Moderation Issues thread*. Any further raising of this in other threads, however imaginatively, will result in your account being suspended.

    I hope I make myself clear.

    *ETA clarification.

  11. Alan Fox: Any further raising of this in other threads, however imaginatively, will result in your account being suspended.

    You have been looking for an excuse to ban me, just like you looked for an excuse to ban others who disagree with you.

    Lizzie SPECIFICALLY stated when she started this site, that people would only be suspended for pornography. You threatening to suspend me goes against the entire principle stated during the inception of this website Alan. You are well aware of that.

    If others bring up issues about how this website is run, on other threads, you are now threatening to suspend me for responding. You are an extremely dishonest, unethical person Alan, and you are offended that I have pointed that out to you, so you would love to have me suspended for calling you out.

    You are shameless , and I will continue to tell you so. If that means you are going to suspend me for revealing what you are, go ahead Alan, suspend me now. You have abused the rules here on so many occasions now, that you hold no credibility whatsoever.

    So go ahead and suspend me. Don’t pretend you aren’t trying to silence your critics, just like you did to Joe and Keiths.

    Shame on you. Suspend me.

  12. It seems you are bitterly angry, phoodoo, & perhaps a bit (maybe?) racist. Why not turn the other cheek? Perhaps you could ‘do better’ yourself?

    Personally, I don’t let Alan bother me. TSZ is just not that important in the bigger picture & your words play into his apatheism.

    Instead, it looks bad on whatever provincial, intolerant form of religion is manifesting in words from your heart on the screen for us to read. Is that what you want people to see? Or don’t you care to change … starting with yourself?

  13. phoodoo: So go ahead and suspend me. Don’t pretend you aren’t trying to silence your critics, just like you did to Joe and Keiths.

    Pro tip, do not compare yourself to Joe if you want to make the point you are being unfairly persecuted.

    Second, keiths is on self imposed exile, he is not suspended.

    Was this helpful?
    Yes
    No

  14. BruceS: At that point, perhaps the moderators can stop relying on the need to await her possible re-engagement with the forum to make rule changes they agree on.

    This has been my position for some time, and long before I became a moderator.

  15. Kind of glad I took a couple days away.

    phoodoo: …it is quite clear that all he is really trying to do is maintain his assault against Christianity, and that is the sole purpose of this website.

    For what it’s worth, I utterly disagree with this statement.

  16. Mung,

    And yet, Alan can’t utter the words, hate speech against Christians is also hate speech, and should be prohibited.

    That is a bridge too far for Alan. He can not possibly utter those words.

    “I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken.”

    Funny that huh.

    They don’t promote Christian hate speech here?

  17. phoodoo:
    Mung,

    And yet, Alan can’t utter the words, hate speech against Christians is also hate speech, and should be prohibited.

    That is a bridge too far for Alan.He can not possibly utter those words.

    Funny that huh.

    They don’t promote Christian hate speech here?

    They think there are no true Christians here so they can say whatever they want…
    Atheists here have the most faith of all …
    I hope most of them don’t get paid for their new militant atheism display here…

  18. Gregory: It seems you are bitterly angry, phoodoo, & perhaps a bit (maybe?) racist.

    And you are a fool. What have I said that is even slightly racist? I am not even a Christian. Yet even I can see the blatant hypocrisy in Alan’s continued fight for the right to abuse Christians here in any way they want, and then claim some moral outrage when J Mac makes any statement whatsoever .

    Who are the most polite posters here. Bill Cole ? Fifthmonarchyman? CharlieM? They get subject to constant abuse from the other side, and Alan never says or does anything. If anything he encourages it, by only ever warning the non-atheists that he will ban them. Has he ever once , ever ever, warned an atheist he will ban them (I know the answer, its no). Who are the polite posters on the other side, do they even exist?

    So spare me. From the beginning this site was always going to be one of the theist bashing, guerilla skepticism propaganda machines. They are everywhere online, from Wikipedia, to Panda’s thumb, to EvC, to Jerry Coyne, and every skeptical site online.

    You are a sociologist and you can’t see that? Don’t make me laugh.

  19. phoodoo,

    Has he ever once warned an atheist[…]

    Can you name anyone who should have been warned, and for what?

  20. Neil Rickert: Check the many communications with keiths.

    Keiths claimed to not be an atheist, and furthermore you very well know Keiths was Alan’s arch nemisis.

    There was and never has been anything noble about Alan’s moderating here.

    Of course I better not comment here anymore either, because Alan is just looking for more excuses to change the rules again, and ban me for criticizing him here.

    Once a coward…

  21. “I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken.”

    Then its simple, all Alan would have to do is say insulting Christians is exactly the same as insulting Jews-both are hate speech and both against the rules.

    But he will never do that, now will he?

  22. Mung: I don’t think they do.

    You think the sites heading was accidental Mung?

    What do you think Lizzie was suggesting people might be wrong about? What do skeptics around the world think people are wrong about?

    Do you know of any well known so called “skeptics” who profess to be religious? Does the skeptical movement imply otherwise? Are you familiar with the skeptical movement Mung?

    But hey, maybe its just coincidence that Alan has only threatened to ban me, Joe, and his arch nemesis keiths right? Just coincidence. (Oh wait, I believe he has also threatened J-Mac).

    But I better be careful, Alan is likely to change the rules anytime now. I could be banned for posting here too.

  23. phoodoo: Do you know of any well know so called “skeptics” who profess to be religious?

    Donald Trump, Jerry Falwell Jr, James Inhofe, are certainly “so called” skeptics ( “so called “ seems to imply not skeptical about everything?

    But hey, maybe its just coincidence that Alan has only threatened to ban me,

    So true, the odds must be astronomical that someone who repeatedly breaks one of the few rules of this place would also be a person threatened with suspension.

    Joe

    Speaking of unbelievable coincidences, that one person and the only person to ever post a link to a NSFW picture and be banned (allowed to post under a sock), would also be a religious adherent. Oh the humanity!!! Could the religious bigotry be any more obvious.

    and his arch nemesis keiths right?

    Sweet, sweet keiths .The way Alan forced him into putting the OP, then forced him into refusal, then the worst cut of all, manipulated Elizabeth into agreeing his suspension within her mandate to moderators. Not religious, but no need to be hung up on consistency

    Just coincidence. (

    Not all religious,, not all banned, not all suspended, best I see is ,all love to play the victim.

    Oh wait, I believe he has also threatened J-Mac).

    He certainly is religious and not suspended

  24. phoodoo: But I better be careful, Alan is likely to change the rules anytime now. I could be banned for posting here too.

    In a way he has by enabling the ignore nuclear option. It is you , the moderators and those with a perverse sense of humor.

  25. How do I inform people I do not wish to talk to them because they waste my time without breaking TSZ rules?

  26. J-Mac:
    How do I inform people I do not wish to talk to them because they waste my time without breaking TSZ rules?

    Just put them on ignore and exercise some self-discipline.

  27. J-Mac,

    Yet again you are unclear. Who isn’t breaking rules? Critics? Or is it you who can’t address criticism without breaking rules? If you can’t usefully respond to criticism, then just ignore it. You have no need to inform anyone, just carry on. Frankly, I think your OPs are so nonsensical they are beyond parody. You should be grateful some here still bother to read them.

  28. Alan Fox: Frankly, I think your OPs are so nonsensical they are beyond parody.

    I’ll admit that when I click the “Publish” button for posts by some of our members (I’m not mentioning names), I do wonder whether I am breaking the rules by making those members look ridiculous.

  29. is there an admin on duty today???
    I have an new op pending to be publishes.
    Thanks, Jmac

  30. Please source the statements that you attribute to Venter.
    Let me know when you are done.

Leave a Reply

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