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. OMagain,

    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.

    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.

  2. keiths:
    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…

  3. OMagain,

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

    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.

  4. keiths: 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.

  5. 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.)

  6. keiths,
    Well, you are a free agent. TSZ provides the venue – the “Field of Dreams”. Members are welcome to submit OPs for publication.

  7. 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.

  8. keiths: Ha ha. Once the subject of his own behavior comes up, Alan suddenly doesn’t want to talk about trustworthiness any more. Too funny.

    Take it to Noyau.

  9. keiths: Alan suddenly doesn’t want to talk about trustworthiness any more.

    What’s that? Like deceiving himself? Don’t worry! He’s really good at that…

  10. Nope. Author status is no longer available.

    …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:

    The rate-limit scheme is superior to the one you’re proposing:

    1. Posters would not have to wait for a moderator to show up and publish their OPs.

    2. It would create far less work for the moderators.

    3. It gives the moderators less power, which is important given their track record of abuses.

    ETA: For those who missed the discussion of the rate-limit proposal, the idea was that OPs would not be held up unless the poster had violated the rate limit. Once that happened, they would be reduced to Contributor status (perhaps after a warning).

  11. keiths:

    Ha ha. Once the subject of his own behavior comes up, Alan suddenly doesn’t want to talk about trustworthiness any more. Too funny.

    Alan:

    Take it to Noyau.

    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.

  12. Yet another moderation abuse from Neil and Alan:

    Neil:

    A note to J-Mac:

    I will approve your latest post, if you agree to make it a guano-free zone. That is, make it a Noyau-like post.

    Alan:

    That seems a reasonable compromise. An OP of such ludicrous content is difficult to comment on without falling foul of the rule on “good faith”. What about it, J-Mac?

    And then, in the OP:

    [Admin edit: This thread is, with the agreement of the thread author, a rule-free thread.]

    These are the same two idiots who write stuff like this:

    Neil:

    I consider myself to be under a moral obligation to attempt to keep the site running in the way that Elizabeth would want, based only on my understanding of what that amounts to.

    Alan:

    That’s my “Golden Rule” too. I ask myself “what would Lizzie do?”.

    And they wonder why they get laughed at.

  13. Alan Fox: Take it to Noyau.

    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?

  14. 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.

  15. DNA_Jock: 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.

    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

    I’m not going to get all bent out of shape if you and Neil and Jock get together and reverse it.

    Alan’s response:
    Alan Fox – March 7, 2019 9:23 pm

    We talked about this. Keiths was switched to contributor status over the potentially libellous OP. Admins agreed that restoration of Author status would be contingent upon some assurance as to future conduct. Absent such undertaking, the restriction remains.

    I took your part. I’m disappointed.

    Mung: So for which of my sins was I removed?

    DNA_Jock:
    All of them.

    Finally the truth. Now which of them had to do with my failure as a moderator?

  16. DNA_Jock: 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.

    Actually if you want to pick nits you can have this one. You changed it back and my comment was after you did so

    With Neil’s and Alan’s consent, I (DNA_Jock) have reverted J-Mac to contributor role.

    What I actually said was the following:

    DNA_Jock: “You are acting all huffy about the fact that three admins got together and agreed to reverse a decision that you had made unilaterally, without explanation, and silently.”

    Mung: You misunderstand. Isn’t the first time, won’t be the last time. I could give a shit about whether or not J-Mac has Contributor or that you guys decided to revert my action. The irony of what you did is that it does just as J-Mac said and made it a 3 v 1. So now he’s right. Congratulations.

    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.

  17. keiths: The rate-limit scheme is superior to the one you’re proposing

    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.

  18. Mung: I have nothing to hide. You have my permission to post all the discussions that took place.

    Thank you.

    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.

    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.

    Mung: Actually if you want to pick nits you can have this one. You changed it back and my comment was after you did so

    With Neil’s and Alan’s consent, I (DNA_Jock) have reverted J-Mac to contributor role.

    What I actually said was the following:

    DNA_Jock: “You are acting all huffy about the fact that three admins got together and agreed to reverse a decision that you had made unilaterally, without explanation, and silently.”

    Mung: You misunderstand. Isn’t the first time, won’t be the last time. I could give a shit about whether or not J-Mac has Contributor or that you guys decided to revert my action. The irony of what you did is that it does just as J-Mac said and made it a 3 v 1. So now he’s right. Congratulations.

    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.

    As a reminder, Mung claimed

    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.

    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:

    It’s absurd to ask that every single statement be supported. Can we agree on that?

    For example, the statement, “J-Mac has already abused his new role, and should be moved back to “Contributor” immediately” hasn’t been supported. Neither has the statement “contrary to the ‘direction’ agreed to during the keitrick kerfuffle” been supported.

    Not very helpful.

    With Neil’s and Alan’s consent, I (DNA_Jock) have reverted J-Mac to contributor role.

    Mung’s reaction:

    I particularly appreciated how no reason was given. Is that because no reason was needed?

    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.

  19. Neil,

    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.

    Neither of those is needed. You didn’t read the description which was right there in the comment:

    The rate-limit scheme is superior to the one you’re proposing:

    1. Posters would not have to wait for a moderator to show up and publish their OPs.

    2. It would create far less work for the moderators.

    3. It gives the moderators less power, which is important given their track record of abuses.

    ETA: For those who missed the discussion of the rate-limit proposal, the idea was that OPs would not be held up unless the poster had violated the rate limit. Once that happened, they would be reduced to Contributor status (perhaps after a warning).

  20. 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.

  21. 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

  22. DNA_Jock,

    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.

    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.

  23. Mung to DNA_Jock: You misunderstand. Isn’t the first time, won’t be the last time.

    Truer words…

  24. 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.

  25. DNA_Jock: 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”.

    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:

    Is it possible to set up a thread to which only the admins have access?

    DNA_Jock: “Could the admin who made the original move, which was contrary to the ‘direction’ agreed to during the keitrick kerfuffle, please identify themselves.”

    I guess when you send an announcement it does not identify the sender? Good to know. I’ll be sure to sign them from now on. It was me.

    – Mung

    It’s absurd to ask that every single statement be supported. Can we agree on that?

    For example, the statement, “J-Mac has already abused his new role, and should be moved back to “Contributor” immediately” hasn’t been supported. Neither has the statement “contrary to the ‘direction’ agreed to during the keitrick kerfuffle” been supported.

    DNA_Jock, apart from attributing to Lenski a view that Lenski might not hold what other statement from J-Mac’s OP is most disconcerting?

    I don’t recall being a party to the admin discussions over the keitrick kerfuffle, I don’t think I became an admin until after that, so if someone could fill me in?

    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.

    DNA_Jock: I felt that Mung was acting childishly, and I wrote a 500 word post describing why I was disappointed in Mung

    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.

    J-Mac: If moderators can’t restrain themselves from trolling, maybe they should consider doing something else other than being hypocrites…

    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?

    Mung: I await your response which shows that I disagreed with you changing it back or argued that he ought to have Author.

    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.

  26. Mung: The context was that Alan was asking J-Mac to provide support for every single claim he makes.

    Asking is not insisting. Where did I do this, BTW?

    PS I see we had some back-channel conversation regarding J-Mac.

  27. Alan Fox: 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.

    Asking is not insisting. Where did I do this, BTW?

    What happened to J-Mac’s OP?

  28. Wow. This confab is so boring and repetitive, I’m ALMOST starting to agree with Bruce.

  29. DNA_Jock: I was, after all, charracterizing your REACTION to my reverting J-Mac’s status.

    I asked you a simple question:

    DNA_Jock, apart from attributing to Lenski a view that Lenski might not hold what other statement from J-Mac’s OP is most disconcerting?

    To which you responded:

    With Neil’s and Alan’s consent, I (DNA_Jock) have reverted J-Mac to contributor role.

    And then my comment:

    I particularly appreciated how no reason was given. Is that because no reason was needed?

    Is anyone going to fill me in on what I asked for? What did everyone else agree to as result of the keitrick kerfuffle?

    DNA_Jock: “Could the admin who made the original move, which was contrary to the ‘direction’ agreed to during the keitrick kerfuffle, please identify themselves.

    Wouldn’t that be relevant information for me to know?

    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?

  30. Alan Fox: And why FFS must you speak in riddles?

    He’s not speaking in riddles. BruceS thinks moderator discussions should be private.

  31. Alan Fox: They’ve all been published as far as I know.

    His OP that he was allowed to post when I gave him Author was published on what date?

    ETA: NM, I found it.

  32. Mung: He’s not speaking in riddles.

    I’m referring to you, Mung.

    BruceS thinks moderator discussions should be private.

    Do you think public discussion has been useful?

  33. Alan Fox: Do you think public discussion has been useful?

    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.

  34. Mung: 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.

    That’s life!

  35. DNA_Jock: 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.

    Longer than it took to create the heavens and the earth. Did you rest on the seventh day?

    DNA_Jock: 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.

    And you had all sorts of reasons to believe I would do something malevolent. Is that what you are asking people to believe?

  36. DNA_Jock: We had a private conversation about Gregory and swamidass and doxxing, during which you consistently mis-characterized my argument.

    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.

    DNA_Jock: I suspect that you interpreted this, incorrectly, as an assertion that no doxxing took place.

    Even you, at the time, put it down to misinterpretation.

    My response:

    Yes, I thought you were saying that no doxxing had taken place and I was trying to figure out why you thought so because it seemed rather obvious to me that it had.

    If you were merely asking for evidence that it had taken place that goes lost somehow.

    Thanks

    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:

    Do you agree with Alan and Neil that doxxing is not a banable offense?

    I think that Gregory deserves an answer. I’d like to give him one. But you Alan and Neil have yet to “step up to the plate.” [By giving Gregory an answer.] I’m willing to do what you appear Alan and Neil appear unwilling to do. [Give Gregory an answer.] But I’d like to hear from you.

    DNA_Jock – February 9, 2019 5:04 am:

    Please provide references for

    the alleged doxxing
    Alan and Neil’s statements that doxxing is not a bannable offense.

    I ask since the most recent doxxing I can recall is keiths doxxing Patrick…

    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?

  37. Alan Fox

    Hi fellow admins from Alan Fox
    The last time moderation was a hot topic here, one of my suggestions was that all members should be on equal level and that should be contributor rather than (new) author, requiring an admin to publish OPs.
    I note that member J-Mac has had his status changed from contributor to (new) author. Personally, I think his OPs contain many unsupported assertions, inaccurate facts and illogical conclusions. I do not think it is warranted to permit him to post OPs without oversight. TSZ readership is sharply down from a couple of years ago and I’m convinced that poorly researched and written OPs aren’t helping.
    What do others think?
    (Trying this announcement facility as messages should go all admins without the need to send individual messages)

    Mung [anonymously]

    Cool. I like this.
    J-Mac is on probation. If he abuses his change in status it should be revoked. But I am less concerned about the quality of his OPs than the quantity. I don’t want him spamming the site any more than you guys do, especially with inane rantings.

    [you don’t find this just a little misleading for the author of the change to write?]
    DNA_Jock

    DNA_Jock here. IMO J-Mac has already abused his new role, and should be moved back to “Contributor” immediately. Could the admin who made the original move, which was contrary to the ‘direction’ agreed to during the keitrick kerfuffle, please identify themselves.

    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.

  38. Alan Fox: Probably.

    🙂

    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?”

Leave a Reply

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