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.

1,441 thoughts on “Moderation Issues (6)

  1. BruceS & OMagain, both non-religious (if not outright atheists), are asking for a study.
    Here’s one just published by researchers at leading universities near BruceS. This unmixed group of “non-religiously oriented” (following their choice of words) psychologists reveals bias. It’s just scratching the surface. This bias is rampant in the fields of evolutionary psychology, evolutionary anthropology, evolutionary sociology & also, so it seems, evolutionary biology; they’re almost all atheists or non-religious(ly-oriented).
    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010027719300617

    “There is a need for greater intellectual diversity in all areas of psychology, but particularly in those that interface with politics and sociocultural beliefs. Greater intellectual diversity in our own lab years ago might have prevented us from continuing to use items in our AOT scale that inflated negative correlations with religiosity. A religiously oriented team member in our lab might have more quickly seen the possibility that the belief revision items made it harder for the religious minded to display actively open-minded thinking when responding. In that sense, our own research on AOT becomes a case study of how ideological bias can infiltrate the work of even the most well-intentioned scientists.”

  2. Gregory: This bias is rampant in the fields of evolutionary psychology, evolutionary anthropology, evolutionary sociology & also, so it seems, evolutionary biology; they’re almost all atheists or non-religious(ly-oriented).

    I can’t actually see any downside to an ideological bias in favor of the non-existence of ghosts et al. Divine foot and all that. I mean, if you are going to be biased in some way and people are only human, being biased against rampant nonsense is going to be one of the least bad options. I don’t correlate greater intellectual diversity to having more believers in children’s tales around.

    In the example quoted above all I do is mentally fast forward a few years to when there are no theists to speak of. The demographics are clear. Then there is no problem really at all. The example is moot.

  3. keiths:

    LOL at Alan and Jock’s further foot-shots. More later.

    J-Mac:

    Does Patrick know?

    About today’s foot-shots? I have no idea.

    But if you’re asking whether he knows what they did to Mung, the answer is yes. He wrote me a few days ago to comment on how out-of-control Alan, Neil, and Jock have become.

  4. OMagain,

    “being biased against rampant nonsense is going to be one of the least bad options.”

    The bias indicated is not against something, but rather for something. There is pro-atheist bias in psychology, which the linked study reveals. If you don’t count that as bias, it’s up to you.

    “fast forward a few years to when there are no theists to speak of.”

    How many years do you predict until that happens where you live? In your lifetime? = P

  5. Jock:

    We know that he [Alan] was not “hot-headed and impulsive” because he took six days, not eight minutes, to pull the plug, which you would know if you had been paying sufficient attention…
    You might want to consider the possibility that it isn’t always about you, keiths.

    Poor Jock. The actual PMs:

    Mung to the other Admins – March 7, 2019 8:20 pm:

    I am changing keiths to give him Author rather than Contributor. I haven’t seen any consensus yet on this but I am at least notifying all of you.

    Alan in a PM to me [Mung] – March 7, 2019 8:28 pm:

    You will find your status amended to contributor pending discussions.

    Jock,

    Sit down with a pencil and paper (and use a calculator, if necessary) and see if you can figure out the elapsed time between

    March 7, 2019 8:20 pm

    …and…

    March 7, 2019 8:28 pm

    Hint: It’s eight minutes, not six days. Let me know if you need some additional hints.

  6. I think we can all be fairly certain that the time interval between 8.20 pm, 7th March, 2019 and 8.28 pm, 7th March, 2019 is eight minutes.

  7. This just popped up as a counter-example to OMagain’s staunch anti-religious attitude, from a professor at MIT. It sure is easy to submit caricatured religious insults here.

    “I believed smart people didn’t need religion. As a result, I declared myself an atheist and dismissed people who believed in God as uneducated. … [when I read] I expected to find phony miracles, made-up creatures, and assorted gobbledygook. To my surprise, Proverbs was full of wisdom. I had to pause while reading and think.”

    https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2019/april/rosalind-picard-mit-professor-meets-author-knowledge.html

    HT: Nicholas A. Christakis

  8. Alan Fox,
    LOL
    In addition to his interesting belief in the persuasive power of repetition, keiths has something of a tell, methinks.

  9. Funny how Jock has suddenly lost interest in defending his false claim:

    We know that he [Alan] was not “hot-headed and impulsive” because he took six days, not eight minutes, to pull the plug, which you would know if you had been paying sufficient attention…

    He has something of a tell, methinks.

  10. No keiths,
    When I wrote

    We know that he was not “hot-headed and impulsive” because he took six days, not eight minutes, to pull the plug, which you would know if you had been paying sufficient attention
    You might want to consider the possibility that it isn’t always about you, keiths.
    [emphasis and links in original]

    I included two hyperlinks to help you out:
    1) the word “paying” links to a comment by Mung, describing (in part) the admin conversation that took place on March 1st “Following the disagreement over whether J-Mac should have New Author status”
    2) the word “attention” links to my comment (the one you found appalling) where I note that “Back when I reverted J-Mac’s status” [that would be on March 1st] I gave Alan my vote on the question of Mung’s status. Your use of the term “hot-head” was in response to my comment: given Alan’s six-day delay, I found that ironic.
    So when I wrote

    You might want to consider the possibility that it isn’t always about you, keiths.

    I meant that you might want to consider the possibility that, you know,…
    [sigh]

  11. So now it appears I was removed as a mod over the J-Mac incident and not over the keiths incident. I guess it depends on which mod is telling the story. But DNA_Jock has kindly revealed that he did in fact rubber stamp any action Alan saw fit to take regardless of when Alan chose to take it or why. Applauds.

    Gotta love those back-channel discussions.

    And we hear from DNA_Jock that he was cool with removing the restriction on keiths as well. So while DNA_Jock may have actually been ok with me allowing keiths to post an OP without a moderator approving it first, that didn’t matter to him.

    DNA_Jock: Let me note that I too approve of your decision to remove keiths from moderation.

    And allowing him to post OPs was just another step in restoring him back to the status he had before. And it sure as hell mattered to Alan and is unquestionably what led to his action, which DNA_Jock had already approved, six days before.

    So for which of my sins was I removed?

  12. DNA_Jock: 1) the word “paying” links to a comment by Mung, describing (in part) the admin conversation that took place on March 1st “Following the disagreement over whether J-Mac should have New Author status”

    There was no disagreement over whether J-Mac should have New Author status and there was no argument over whether J-Mac should have New Author status.

    You got all pissy about it and I said fine, change it back. And for this you give Alan carte blanche.

  13. Mung,

    Besides the sleaziness and the dishonesty, you have to marvel at Jock’s incompetence.

    You rightfully restore me to Author status. Eight minutes later, Alan throws a tantrum and removes you as moderator. Who, besides Jock, would be dumb enough to argue that Alan’s hotheaded and impulsive action wasn’t in response to what you had done just eight minutes earlier?

    Poor Jock is out of his depth here.

  14. Alan,

    A reminder that events here are sometimes noticed elsewhere.

    You, Neil, and Jock should keep that in mind.

    Your moderation abuses are not only visible to the public as they happen — they are also recorded here.

  15. keiths:
    Alan,

    You, Neil, and Jock should keep that in mind.

    Your moderation abuses are not only visible to the public as they happen — they are also recorded here.

    From the comments at PT, the abuse is the lack of moderation not the excess amount.

  16. newton,

    From the comments at PT, the abuse is the lack of moderation not the excess amount.

    I was responding to Alan’s point about visibility, not to any comments at PT:

    Your moderation abuses are not only visible to the public as they happen — they are also recorded here.

    In any case, the biggest issue here isn’t “the excess amount” of moderation — it’s the outright abuse of moderation privileges by Alan, Neil, and Jock.

  17. keiths:
    newton,

    I was responding to Alan’s point about visibility, not to any comments at PT:

    That was the public Alan linked to, seemed relevant to your comment.

    In any case, the biggest issue here isn’t “the excess amount” of moderation — it’s the outright abuse of moderation privileges by Alan, Neil, and Jock.

    “Your moderation abuses are not only visible to the public as they happen — they are also recorded here”

    Apparently some of the public disagrees with you.

  18. newton,

    As if ‘elsewhere’ meant ‘at PT and only at PT’.

    keiths:

    Your moderation abuses are not only visible to the public as they happen — they are also recorded here.

    newton:

    Apparently some of the public disagrees with you.

    Some of the public disagrees that abuses are visible to the public, or that they are recorded here? Who?

  19. keiths:
    newton,

    As if ‘elsewhere’ meant ‘at PT and only at PT’.

    It was only one that had a link to it. Alan commented on the thread linked. It seems likely it was the “elsewhere” he had in mind. Never said anything about “only”.

    keiths:

    newton:

    <Some of the public disagrees that abuses are visible to the public, or that they are recorded here?Who?

    Yes ,suffering from a lack of substance , the abuses are not visible to some of the public. Others claim ,despite this drawback , they can see abuses anyway.

  20. newton,

    As if people on other sites, such as UD and AtBC, had never noticed and commented on events at TSZ.

    Yes ,suffering from a lack of substance , the abuses are not visible to some of the public. Others claim ,despite this drawback , they can see abuses anyway.

    Your goalpost move is noted. How about moving them back and answering the question?

    keiths, to Alan:

    You, Neil, and Jock should keep that in mind.

    Your moderation abuses are not only visible to the public as they happen — they are also recorded here.

    newton:

    Apparently some of the public disagrees with you.

    keiths:

    Some of the public disagrees that abuses are visible to the public, or that they are recorded here? Who?

  21. At Pandas Thumb they hate that so many creationists are allowed to post here.

    How cute.

  22. phoodoo:
    At Pandas Thumb they hate that so many creationists are allowed to post here.

    How cute.

    Just the not too bright ones, if I were to guess.

  23. phoodoo:
    At Pandas Thumb they hate that so many creationists are allowed to post here.

    How cute.

    And at Panda’s Thumb they have no creationists, but JoeG once in the blue moon, and what happened there?

    Joe Felsenstain on why he won’t comment at TSZ:

    “Basically, no. I will comment there when issues come up that are in my area of technical expertise. But PT has (or can have if we get things like the Bathroom Wall back) a way to prevent trollery from taking over the whole blog. So I want to see if we can get PT to work. This, alas, seems to depend on me doing an unreasonable amount of script-writing but I think we need it to happen. If you want to post at TSZ a short notice about my post here, do go ahead.

    No creationists at Panda’s Thumb and the blog is dead.. Joe F is trying to revive it by resurrecting old themes that have been beaten to death at PT and TSZ many, many time before…

  24. Two weeks and still no word from Elizabeth. Good thing I wasn’t waiting around hoping to hear from her. I should never have had my moderator capabilities suspended without her consent, especially over such a silly little thing. It’s not at all as if I posed a threat to the site, like i might just decide to ban one of the other mods.

    And DNA_Jock should never have given carte blanche to Alan.

    By the way, there is another side to this. Both Vincent and JB before him agreed to be moderators and totally failed to live up to the responsibility. But being a total failure as a mod doesn’t require any action to remove. Obviously.

    Best wishes

  25. Has Mung’s Moderator status been returned or not? If not, what’s holding up the process?

  26. I refrained from reacting to your recent comments here out of a sense of generosity, Mung; but I am not that generous.
    These statements of yours were on point:

    I get the feeling you think I take things far more seriously than I actually do. But perhaps, if you try hard enough, I’ll throw a tantrum and have to ban myself.

    and

    I was born a troll and I’ll die a troll.

    That and your exhortations to “Do your duty!”
    So I did.

    I voted for your dismissal based on a long history of behaviors, best characterized as not engaging honestly; that or you are dumb as a bag of rocks, and I really don’t think that that is the case.
    I offered up my proxy vote since I was about to go incommunicado for 3 days, and I reckoned a malevolent admin could theoretically do a lot of damage in that time.
    I had raised all of the behaviors that I found objectionable with you in a timely manner. Your manner of discussing them left a lot to be desired, however.
    You guano’ed a post of dazz’s that (IMO) did not break any rule. When I raised this with you, you cited as “precedent” a comment that I had guano’ed, where the only commonality was the word “fuck”. Then, when I guano’ed a post of J-Mac’s, you publically assumed that this was done in retaliation. WTF?
    We had a private conversation about Gregory and swamidass and doxxing, during which you consistently mis-characterized my argument.
    Your behavior towards T_Aq (accusing him of dishonesty) and John H. (claiming that he made statements about negative selection that you KNEW he had not) was pathetic.
    So when you silently and unilaterally changed J-Mac’s status and then dissembled about your role in the matter, that was (for me, but not for Alan) the final straw. I explained my reasoning in the announcement to all admins titled “Mene Mene Tekel Upharsin”. Are you unfamiliar with the Book of Daniel?
    Here’s a more recent example of the behavior that causes me concern: I did note (an olive branch, a fig leaf, whatever random piece of vegetation you wish) that I approved of your call to take keiths out of moderation. “Good call” I wrote.
    But
    I never, at any stage, suggested in any way that I would be okay with giving (New) Author status to anybody.
    So when you write

    And we hear from DNA_Jock that he was cool with removing the restriction on keiths as well. So while DNA_Jock may have actually been ok with me allowing keiths to post an OP without a moderator approving it first, that didn’t matter to him.

    That is a misrepresentation: I was not ok with any New Authors.

    And allowing him to post OPs was just another step in restoring him back to the status he had before. And it sure as hell mattered to Alan and is unquestionably what led to his action, which DNA_Jock had already approved, six days before.
    So for which of my sins was I removed?

    All of them.

    Mung
    There was no disagreement over whether J-Mac should have New Author status and there was no argument over whether J-Mac should have New Author status.
    You got all pissy about it and I said fine, change it back. And for this you give Alan carte blanche.

    Whaaat? Of course there was disagreement over whether J-Mac should have New Author status.
    Furthermore, you did not consent to changing him back to contributor – in fact you whined about it.
    Yet again, you are misrepresenting the previous conversation.
    You do this in all of the moderation conversations I have had with you.
    So why did I vote to have you dismissed?
    For being continually guilty of misrepresentations like those.

  27. Mung:

    I should never have had my moderator capabilities suspended without her [Lizzie’s] consent, especially over such a silly little thing.

    Alan, Neil and Jock know this, of course. They waited for Lizzie to appoint you, after all, and so of course they should have waited for her to remove you, if she decided to so.

    It’s not at all as if I posed a threat to the site, like i might just decide to ban one of the other mods.

    Heh.

    Right. There was no threat. Alan wasn’t rushing in to deal with an emergency; he was just a little boy throwing a temper tantrum. And the Rubber Stamp Twins, sulky boys themselves, were happy to see him do it and raised no objections.

    Regarding Vincent and johnnyb, note how their names didn’t come up until Jock and Alan wanted to cite them as token theist moderators (as if that would somehow provide cover for the illicit removal of the only active theist moderator.)

    Did AlaNeilJock wait for input from Vincent and johnnyb (and Lizzie) before taking action? Of course not. The latter are just tools for the former to trot out when they’re trying to cover their asses.

  28. Gregory,

    Has Mung’s Moderator status been returned or not? If not, what’s holding up the process?

    The answer is: Neil and Jock.

    After all the protests and pressure, Alan finally caved in and agreed to restore Mung as moderator. Neil and Jock objected.

    (This is by Jock’s own account.)

  29. DNA_Jock,

    Yet again, you are misrepresenting the previous conversation.
    You do this in all of the moderation conversations I have had with you.

    This is your opinion. Why are 3 highly biased moderators able to push out the only moderator representing the theistic world view? This looks like political non sense.

    If this is not rectified I would suggest that all theists move discussions elsewhere as the three of you appear corrupt.

  30. keiths: After all the protests and pressure, Alan finally caved in and agreed to restore Mung as moderator. Neil and Jock objected.

    As usual, keiths writes his own script.

  31. colewd: I would suggest that all theists move discussions elsewhere

    Please, go ahead and lead by example. Please

  32. Alan Fox,

    For me the issue is trust.

    This action makes the moderators look like they cannot be trusted. I suggest a new group of moderators that can form a team. 2 theists 2 non theists and Lizzy can break a tie. For non theists I recommend Walto, KN, Joe F, Newton, Tom E. Someone from the non theist group should recommend theist moderators.

  33. colewd: This is your opinion

    Iff Mung consents, then I will share with you the conversation, the one that Mung characterized as “You got all pissy about it and I said fine, change it back.”.
    Then you can decide for yourself.

  34. DNA_Jock,

    Jock
    All new groups go through phases of disagreements until they form a functional team. You guys are going through this phase. You need to work it out. Not with overpowering the decenting world view but by continued HONEST discussions. Disagreements can be very healthy if worked through properly.

  35. colewd:
    Alan Fox,

    This action makes the moderators look like they cannot be trusted.I suggest a new group of moderators that can form a team.2 theists 2 non theists and Lizzy can break a tie.For non theists I recommend Walto, KN, Joe F, Newton, Tom E.Someone from the non theist group should recommend theist moderators.

    Hahaha. No.

    But I nominate you.

  36. J-Mac: I have a new OP waiting to be published…
    Should I email admins?
    thanks, Jmac

    I say no more OP’s from J-Mac until he bothered to seriously engage on one of the dozens he’s already got on the go.

  37. But what do I know. All I know is his trash is destroying what’s left of this place.

  38. DNA_Jock:
    You have a point.

    I guess having a subjective view of what one OP is vs another, is against the rules?
    How about the OP by OMagain? Content “?”
    Should I change my content to just question mark to please one subjective point of view?
    I’m sure the abuses we have seen here at TSZ have no limits now…

  39. OMagain:
    But what do I know. All I know is his trash is destroying what’s left of this place.

    “?”
    This was the content of your last OP…
    How should I call it? You tell me…

  40. J-Mac: “?”
    This was the content of your last OP…
    How should I call it? You tell me…

    Nobody can tell you anything. That’s quite clear.

  41. J-Mac: I guess having a subjective view of what one OP is vs another, is against the rules?

    Your op’s are trash. My op’s are trash. Now we’re even. Stop whining.

  42. Is OMagain suggesting censorship of OPs with their content subject to what he wants to hear?
    Or has he been self-appointed as a moderator replacing Mung already?
    Either way, we all know where this is going…

  43. OMagain: Nobody can tell you anything. That’s quite clear.

    Why don’t you join and a Feel Good Church for Atheists?
    Unlike me, they will tell you what you want to hear…for a fee…;-)

Leave a Reply

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