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.
2,711 thoughts on “Moderation Issues (6)”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
In order not to clutter this thread with more inanity I have responded to you here J-Mac: http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/noyau-2/comment-page-58/#comment-250414
OMagain,
The last thing we should do is to single out a commenter and censor him on account of OPs that aren’t rule-violating, while giving power to a trio of corrupt moderators to decide what constitutes “serious engagement”.
The rate-limit proposal is far better.
Lizzy doesn’t care…remember?
What’s that mean” OMgun to become whatever the abusive morons want him to …
He is on your side though…so be careful… He could, and should, become an admin…
OMagain,
Rate limiting will prevent him (and anyone else) from flooding the place with OPs.
As long as other folks step up to provide useful content, we’re good. I’m ready to do my part, but the mods are impeding that by refusing to undo their abuse and restore me to Author status.
You know full well what the issue is keiths. It’s trust. You are welcome to submit OPs and they will be published if they don’t infringe TSZ rules or laws on defamation etc.
Alan,
Oh, please. It has nothing to do with trust, and everything to do with your little-boy grudge.
If trust were actually the issue, then you, of all people, wouldn’t be allowed to post OPs without adult supervision.
Have you forgotten how sleazy your behavior has been? (And that’s just one episode.)
keiths,
Well, you are a free agent. TSZ provides the venue – the “Field of Dreams”. Members are welcome to submit OPs for publication.
Ha ha. Once the subject of his own behavior comes up, Alan suddenly doesn’t want to talk about trustworthiness any more. Too funny.
Go ahead and restore me to Author status, Alan. I’ve requested it, and I’ve reiterated my agreement with Lizzie’s stipulation that thread authors refrain from deleting or editing comments (which I never would have done anyway).
And if you of all people are allowed to publish your own OPs, then there is no valid reason to deny it to me.
keiths,
Nope. Author status is no longer available.
Take it to Noyau.
What’s that? Like deceiving himself? Don’t worry! He’s really good at that…
Don’t you get it? It gives him a sense of power or that’s what he believes…
…says Alan, reaching for another excuse.
But of course Author status is available and doubtless requires just a few mouse clicks.
And lest he argue that “Oh, no, we need to demote everyone to Contributor status”, the answer is: No, we don’t. The rate-limit proposal is much better than that idea, as I’ve already explained:
keiths:
Alan:
Buzz off. You brought it up here, and it’s a moderation issue, so this thread is a perfectly appropriate place for it.
You might want to think twice before bringing up trustworthiness. It’s not exactly your strong suit.
Yet another moderation abuse from Neil and Alan:
Neil:
Alan:
And then, in the OP:
These are the same two idiots who write stuff like this:
Neil:
Alan:
And they wonder why they get laughed at.
Why should he take it to noyau? He is talking about you, and your moderator abuses. This is what this thread is for. Are you trying to change that rule now too Alan?
What other dick moves are you hiding up your sleeve Alan?
I believe what Alan is now doing is he is testing how far he can ignore the rules and ideas Lizzie had for this site, without her finally intervening and saying, fine, get rid of this guy too.
Every step he takes is one more towards him just taking over the site and making it his own-which is pretty funny considering he already had his own blog, and no one seemed that interested in that.
I have nothing to hide. You have my permission to post all the discussions that took place.
Your grudge against me is well known. Were you even asked about me becoming a mod in the first place?
You either agreed to it, in which case you are two-faced. Or you had no say in the matter, in which case you should have had no say in the matter of my removal. Or you disagreed with it, in which case you should still have had no say in the matter of my removal as you had clearly been over-ruled.
Here’s why I was removed, according to Alan:
Me to Alan after he asked why I didn’t run keiths’s request to be changed from Contributor:
Mung – March 7, 2019 9:23 pm
Alan’s response:
Alan Fox – March 7, 2019 9:23 pm
Mung: So for which of my sins was I removed?
Finally the truth. Now which of them had to do with my failure as a moderator?
Actually if you want to pick nits you can have this one. You changed it back and my comment was after you did so
What I actually said was the following:
So the important fact here is that there was no argument or disagreement from me over whether he would have to remain as Contributor. I simply didn’t care.
I await your response which shows that I disagreed with you changing it back or argued that he ought to have Author.
Given the software that we have, the only way to implement a rate limit scheme is:
(1) demote everybody (other than admins) to contributor status;
(2) limit the rate at which pending posts are approved.
Thank you.
I voted in favor of you becoming a moderator; I thought you would be a good addition to the team. I was wrong. There’s nothing two-faced about it. Furthermore, I offered my criticisms of your performance in a timely manner.
As a reminder, Mung claimed
What actually happened:
Mung silently and without explanation changed J-Mac’s status.
When Alan noticed this, explained why he thought it was a bad idea, and asked for feedback, Mung’s response was a cryptic “Cool. I like this. J-Mac is on probation”.
I offered my opinion that J-Mac should be moved back to contributor (based on the quality of the post in question), and asked that the moderator responsible for the change identify themselves.
This drew a somewhat pissy response from Mung:
Not very helpful.
Mung’s reaction:
I felt that Mung was acting childishly, and I wrote a 500 word post describing why I was disappointed in Mung, titled “Mene Mene Tekel Upharsin”.
It was at the end of that post that I made the comment about you acting all huffy : I was, after all, charracterizing your REACTION to my reverting J-Mac’s status.
You conveniently forgot your sarcastic first reaction.
You are doing it again.
THIS is why I no longer think you should be a moderator.
Neil,
Neither of those is needed. You didn’t read the description which was right there in the comment:
DNA_Jock,
We need moderators with different points of view that can operate as a team. I am interested if you can work through your differences with Mung without pulling a political power play. You are currently practicing censorship based on all the actions described.
colewd,
I tried, and I was not successful. I note that Mung has declared that he has no interest in returning.
Personally, I don’t see the “diversity of moderator worldview” as the panacea that some here believe it to be. A worthy goal, absolutely; optically positive, sure; but a solution to tribalism, apparently not. Consider your reaction to this discussion as a example.
Separately, I am curious as to how I am practicing censorship. I could understand if you felt it was “viewpoint discrimination”. You’d be wrong, but wrong in a perfectly reasonable way.
e4typo
DNA_Jock,
You are trying to make it more difficult for J Mac to post. His posts although admittedly colorful usually lead to lots of interesting discussion. I agree with Keiths that you guys are applying control in areas that degrade the quality of the site.
I think your inability to work with Mung was telling to your ability to lead a blog like this and allow it to be a leading site for opposing worldview to have safe discussion.
Mung to DNA_Jock: You misunderstand. Isn’t the first time, won’t be the last time.
Truer words…
Explain then.
Just an observation. I’ve participated in a number of forums, and I’ve never seen a moderation policy that everyone liked. I’ve been told that slashdot has a really policy, but which involves some complex programming. Appropriate.
500 words to answer a simple question.
Alan posted a comment to all admins, which pretty much ruled out Alan. And DNA_Jock knows he didn’t do it. And I was the first admin to respond to Alan, in which I stated that J-Mac was on probation. But DNA_Jock couldn’t connect the dots.
Even so, the following exchange then took place:
Notice the utter lack of any argument over J-Mac’s status. The context was that Alan was asking J-Mac to provide support for every single claim he makes. I was pointing out how absurd that was.
DNA_Jock probably simply misinterpreted my comments.
You left out my comment about once a troll always a troll. That you would now try to use that against me is just hilarious.
Yeah, he was so obviously talking about me.
And why are you bringing up things that took place after you had already rubber stamped whatever Alan chose to do?
I’m still waiting.
You’re making it sound like there was some argument about his status going on between me and the other mods when there wasn’t. i didn’t argue that he neeeded to have author and i din’t disagree with the decision to change it back.
Asking is not insisting. Where did I do this, BTW?
PS I see we had some back-channel conversation regarding J-Mac.
Yeah, I see you managed to figure out who made the change right away. 🙂
And like I said to DNA_Jock, I have nothing to hide.
What happened to J-Mac’s OP?
They’ve all been published as far as I know.
Wow. This confab is so boring and repetitive, I’m ALMOST starting to agree with Bruce.
Alan Fox,
And why FFS must you speak in riddles?
walto,
It’s your fault and you should own up!
I asked you a simple question:
To which you responded:
And then my comment:
How do you know my reaction wasn’t due to the lack of response to my inquiries rather than a reaction to you reverting J-Mac’s status?
He’s not speaking in riddles. BruceS thinks moderator discussions should be private.
His OP that he was allowed to post when I gave him Author was published on what date?
ETA: NM, I found it.
I’m referring to you, Mung.
Do you think public discussion has been useful?
Mung,
Just make your point, FFS!
Look at your comments in this thread:
It remains to be seen. What we’ll never know is whether the outcome would have been different had the discussions we were having had been done in public.
Mung,
And?
That’s life!
Longer than it took to create the heavens and the earth. Did you rest on the seventh day?
And you had all sorts of reasons to believe I would do something malevolent. Is that what you are asking people to believe?
Have you lost track of the conversation?
Mung,
Probably.
And what I said to you was that I had misunderstood you. But you want to now publicly accuse me of mis-characterization which gives it a slant that it doesn’t deserve. And what evil came of it DNA_Jock? When all was said and done I finally understood what you were saying.
Even you, at the time, put it down to misinterpretation.
My response:
And that was the end of it.
By the way, that entire conversation is instructive. What with you being all cryptic and and all and now accusing me of consistently mis-characterizing your argument.
Here’s how it started. Mung – February 9, 2019 4:51 am:
DNA_Jock – February 9, 2019 5:04 am:
I think I could be forgiven for thinking that you were taking a position that to your knowledge no doxxing had taken place. You call it an alleged doxxing. You ask for evidence it took place. The last doxxing you were aware of was not Swamidass outing Gregory, but some other event.
What exactly was the moderator screw-up, what action did I take or fail to take as a result? Talk about irrelevant bullshit. Muddying the waters.
Do you want to actually show people how I mis-characterized your argument or do you just want to leave it floating out there without any evidence to back it up?
Alan Fox
Mung [anonymously]
[you don’t find this just a little misleading for the author of the change to write?]
DNA_Jock
Mung now wants to argue that there was no disagreement about changing J-Mac’s status. WTF?
That there were no reasons given for reverting his status?
Remember, the original change was silent, anonymous, and without explanation.
🙂
DNA_Jock is mis-characterizing my argument. I was showing how my response to him wasn’t what he was making it out to be because I was employing a literary device, something he should be familiar with.
I wasn’t literally accusing him of making unsupported claims that he needed to back up. Especially given that I had just written that “It’s absurd to ask that every single statement be supported. Can we agree on that?”