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.

2,711 thoughts on “Moderation Issues (6)

  1. DNA_Jock: Mung now wants to argue that there was no disagreement about changing J-Mac’s status. WTF?

    That’s right.

    But if you pound that drum long enough and hard enough it might just make a different sound.

    What part of the following do you not grok? And remember, this was at the time. It’s not like I am just making it up now.

    I could give a shit about whether or not J-Mac has Contributor or that you guys decided to revert my action.

    That’s my story and I am sticking to it. As you well know, it was never about that.

    By the way, did you ever answer my question to you about whether you were consulted about the decision to not ban Swamidass when it was made?

  2. DNA_Jock: Remember, the original change was silent, anonymous, and without explanation.

    That’s not what you said earlier:

    DNA_Jock: 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.

    Alan managed to figure out it was me and I didn’t try to hide the fact that I was the one who did it or otherwise dissemble over the matter. And I didn’t owe you an explanation.

    And forget about the fact that I notified you all that I was giving keiths Author. But who cares about such niggling details, right DNA_Jock? I took to heart that you wanted to be notified.

    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.

    So I did what you requested, DNA_Jock, and still had my moderator status suspended. Was it that I failed to explain why? I did it because he asked. Just as with J-Mac. Was it that I forgot to sign the message? Because, again, Alan managed to quickly figure it out. Did I need your permission before acting? Is that the real issue here?

    DNA_Jock:

    In stark contrast, you have offered zero justification for the original change; in fact you did not even notify me of the change. Did you notify Neil or Alan? Did you offer any rationale? 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.
    You disappoint me.

    DNA_Jock exits stage left… in tears … (I was such a disappointment.)

    My full response to DNA_Jock (sent to all the admins):

    The Horror of it All

    “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.”

    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.

    What I am huffy about is the utter blatant hypocrisy. Yours in particular.

    Were you and Neil consulted by Alan before he decided that even though Swamidass committed the bannable offense of outing Gregory that Swamidass should be believed when he claimed to not have been aware of the rule, or even whether or not he was aware of it even mattered, and decided that no banning would take place? Or did he decided unilaterally that Swamidass would not be banned?

    If he did not consult you and Neil then get off your high moral horse.

    As a second example Neil moved a comment of Gregory’s to Guano even though it violated no rules. Another unilateral decision. They happen all the time here and I’m sorry if it gets your panties in a wad when I make one.

    I’d love to work with you guys. I’ve always managed to work with Alan. I don’t know why you think you have to be such a hardass. I will tell you it doesn’t help.

    Alan’s action was precipitous. DNA_Jock’s approval was malicious. That I tried to hide the fact that I was the one who made the change is simply false. And it was on this false charge that he gave carte blanche to Alan.

    So in the end, the true villian is revealed.

    It’s a play, walto. Theatre. Would you like a refund of the price of admission?

    Moderators acting without telling the other moderators or getting their permission. It’s a story that never gets old. That’s why I was removed. The irony.

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

    Please stop asking. My participation has been limited to the Moderation Issues thread and even then I have tried to limit myself to what took place that resulted in my removal. Were it not for DNA_Jock’s appearance on stage I would have been gone.

    I think Alan was probably willing to reconsider, but once that action took place I was not. And I take responsibility for my choice.

    Looks like Swamidass has “banned” me at his site for questioning his integrity. I can read but can no longer post. This is the guy who said he would not out Gregory but then proceeded to do so. But for Alan, it’s about trust. 🙂

    Guess it’s back to UD for me then! Got to go grovel at Barry’s knees because the moderators here drove me away. I do love irony! And symmetry.

  4. Alan Fox: I’m referring to you, Mung.

    Do you think public discussion has been useful?

    You mean it would be better if the users of this forum didn’t know the reasons why you (what are you the fucking king here?) blocked the only non atheist from being a moderator here?

    Better for who? Better for you to operate in secret, but not better for anyone else or this site. Your whole conspiracy here just relies on Lizzie being too disinterested to do anything.

    Do you think you are popular here Alan? How about a vote?

  5. phoodoo: You mean it would be better if the users of this forum didn’t know the reasons why you (what are you the fucking king here?) blocked the only non atheist from being a moderator here?

    Don’t forget about VJT and JB.

    We know why Alan did it. And we know why DNA_Jock, like Pilate, wrung his hands.

    What we don’t know is why Neil consented. Or even if he did.

    So while there is a great deal still that we do not know, I think that we do know enough.

  6. Mung,

    Yea, Alan thinks it would be better if he were just able to announce, well I have had to make a few changes, a few people have been banned, like Keith’s, and me and you. Also there will be no more moderator thread, and by the way, from now on complaints will be blocked, . I am not going to get into the reasons for the suspensions, . Oh, and where is j mac lately? We are on not going to get into that, that’s a private matter.

    Also there are more new rules, but I won’t be announcing them publicly.

  7. Good grief! Pilate didn’t wring his hands, he washed them. Did you guys get no religious instruction? But I will note, like he did, “quod scripsi, scripsi”.
    And Mung’s performance here has allayed what little doubts I had about my March 1st vote.
    I’m still not an atheist, though.
    🙂

  8. petrushka,

    Just an observation. I’ve participated in a number of forums, and I’ve never seen a moderation policy that everyone liked.

    The issue here isn’t the moderation policy, which the moderators ignore anyway. It’s the moderation abuses.

    When you give power to bad people, bad things happen.

  9. I am pleased to announce a three-way tie among the moderators for the title of “Most Pompous and Hypocritical Twit”:

    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”.

    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?”.

    These guys are masters of self-parody.

  10. keiths,

    Time to take matters in your own hands keiths. Lizzie has been effectively uninvolved with TSZ for three years. In that time the site has declined (using unique daily visits as a metric) roughly 75% in activity. I don’t doubt her absence is the major cause of the decline in interest.

    I’ve been unable to establish whether she intends to resume her former involvement at some point: all I have had from her are vague statements that this may happen when her other commitments become less of a burden. In the mean time, the site is left to drift with Jock, Neil and myself as stewards of Gondor.

    Maybe it’s time to pack up the experiment and move on. This site can be archived and whoever wants to set up a site or forum more in line with their preferences should go ahead and do so.

  11. Alan Fox: Maybe it’s time to pack up the experiment and move on

    Just to put it out there:
    Another alternative is for the moderators to agree on how they would like the site to be moderated and then do it that way.
    If Lizzie returns to stop that, fine.
    If Lizzie declines to pay for it under that scenario, then we are back to either the status quo or shutting it down.
    I recognize that may mean even lower traffic, but so what? It’s quality over quantity, where quality is defined by the moderators, who have the right to do that since they are the ones doing the drudge work to keep the site going.

    They also have the authority to do that, IMHO, since Lizzie chose them and since her ongoing inaction has yielded de facto authority to them.

  12. BruceS: Alan Fox: Maybe it’s time to pack up the experiment and move on

    If Alan means the experiment of him being the King, then hear ye, hear ye, pack it up (again).

    Why is he so afraid of losing his power?

  13. Alan Fox: Maybe it’s time to pack up the experiment and move on.

    I don’t enjoy Panda’s Thumb or Uncommon Descent because those sites are simply partisan tribal echo chambers.

    I liked this site and the now defunct Telic Thoughts because I felt they attempted to be neutral discussion sites where all points of view surrounding science related topics were welcomed where nepotism and partiality were frowned upon.

    The “experiment” seems show once again that in the end nepotism and partiality are more stable in human endeavors than impartiality and even-handedness.

    Those previously mentioned partisan sites along with new ones like Peaceful Science seem to be doing just fine while it’s the ones that purport to strive for fairness that are either gone or in crisis.

    Such is the plight of all human attempts of appealing to our better natures.

    There is a lesson there that John Calvin would surely have recognized.

    peace

  14. phoodoo: If Alan means the experiment of him being the King, then hear ye, hear ye, pack it up (again).

    King of having to do extra work, wow what a privilege.

    Why is he so afraid of losing his power?

    You should make Lizzie an offer, then all this could be yours. You have been offering up your expertise on the way things should be done for a long time. A theist could be in charge. Seems a simple solution

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

    More than that

  16. DNA_Jock: Good grief! Pilate didn’t wring his hands, he washed them.

    Good Grief! You think I don’t know that? I deliberately chose to use the word I used knowing full well that you didn’t wash your hands but that Pilate did.

    Did you pick up my reference to six days, or was that too subtle for you too?

  17. DNA_Jock: And Mung’s performance here has allayed what little doubts I had about my March 1st vote.

    A vote that was based on numerous fictions.

    My Side of the J-Mac Incident

    J-Mac sent me a PM requesting he be restored to Author. I agreed to do so but warned him to not muck it up. A clear indication that I was willing to revert my action.

    When asked who changed his status I replied that J-Mac was on probation. Another clear indication that I was willing to revert my action.

    I then asked what was objectionable about his OP, apart from his comment about Lenski. This was becase I wanted to tell him if I reverted him back to Contributor why I did so. But DNA_Jock did not ask me to revert J-Mac. He just went ahead and did it himself.

    And that is the basis of my comment about no reason given. It is not that I was opposed to the action, it is that I wanted to be able to give J-Mac a reason for it.

    There was no refusal to change him back on my part. I wasn’t asked to change J-Mac back. Nor did I put him back to Author after he had been changed back to Contributor.

    DNA_Jock’s case for my removal is based on the fiction that I was opposed to J-Mac being reverted and that I tried to hide the fact that I was the one who gave him Author. It’s also based on the fiction that I was or would for some unknown and unpecified reason become malevolent. That’s pretty bad.

    But you, DNA_Jock, are the righteous one.

  18. Alan,

    Lizzie’s absence isn’t the problem. It’s the trio of corrupt and incompetent moderators she left in charge.

    Phoodoo once aptly asked:

    How does Lizzie choose her moderators, by a crayon drawing contest or does she just use cadaver dogs?

  19. Mung: It’s also based on the fiction that I was or would for some unknown and unpecified reason become malevolent. That’s pretty bad.

    It appears like it all boils down to the fact that the powers that be were afraid of the token barbarian in a position of power. This is a story as old as history.

    They did not “trust” that someone different would act as they desired and it was assumed that any independent action he made was coming from a position of nefarious intent rather than an attempt to do his job with integrity.

    Fear can be a powerful motivator and we all are susceptible to prejudices against people who are different than us.

    The solution in such cases is to have genuine checks on power and to zealously protect diversity of expression.

    The framers of the US constitution had the right idea.

    peace

  20. Wait a sec, you gave J-Mac (New) Author status, despite the fact that you don’t want him spamming the site with inane rantings (your term), just because he asked you? That’s it? And you did so silently. Not a peep to ask the other admins what they thought. Yikes.

    Whenever you attempt to defend your actions, you consistently mis-characterize the history.
    e.g.

    Mung: But DNA_Jock did not ask me to revert J-Mac.

    Ha! Well, I did not ask YOU to revert J-Mac, because I did not know that it was YOU who had made the silent, anonymous change. I did write

    DNA_Jock here. IMO J-Mac has already abused his new role, and should be moved back to “Contributor” immediately.

    That’s pretty clear.
    Here’s another example:

    DNA_Jock’s case for my removal is based on the fiction that I was opposed to J-Mac being reverted and that I tried to hide the fact that I was the one who gave him Author. It’s also based on the fiction that I was or would for some unknown and unpecified reason become malevolent.

    is false.
    It is the long history of dissembling that did it for me. I should thank you, I guess, for your continued demonstration of such behavior in public.

  21. DNA_Jock: you gave J-Mac (New) Author status, despite the fact that you don’t want him spamming the site with inane rantings (your term), just because he asked you? That’s it?

    Isn’t that the sort of thing moderators are supposed to do? Contingent on credible promises of good behavior of course.

    peace

  22. DNA_Jock: It is the long history of dissembling that did it for me.

    Those other guys are always planning and scheming in secret against us.

    We just know it

    peace

  23. Alan,

    Maybe it’s time to pack up the experiment and move on.

    Maybe it’s time for you to pack up and move on. Leave TSZ to those who actually value open discussion instead of trying to reshape it in your own censorial image.

    TSZ runs much more smoothly when you’re not around, as we’ve seen again and again during your vacations and other absences. When you announced your resignation, it was a red letter day for TSZ. Your return wasn’t requested or needed. You forced yourself on us, and the result was one of the biggest moderation fiascos in the history of the site. Your behavior was so abusive that former moderator Patrick called for your (and Neil’s and Jock’s) removal.

    TSZ is the patient, and you are a tumor. The solution is to remove the tumor, not to kill the patient.

  24. keiths:
    Alan,

    Maybe it’s time for you to pack up and move on.Leave TSZ to those who actually value open discussion instead of trying to reshape it in your own censorial image.

    TSZ is the patient, and you are a tumor.The solution is to remove the tumor, not to kill the patient.

    All moderators quit, now what? What is the next step? Mung , the lone moderator? Bring back Patrick?

    No moderators? Have a gander at J-Macs thread? Seems to be working well.

    Next , you present your ultimatum to Lizzie? She ,of course, will agree she was mistaken about all the previous moderators and their abuses which she has made no effort to do anything about ,You pitch her the same story you did before, last I checked she ignored your input. She obviously has no time or interest to take a active role . Even if she did, you would end up right back here decrying her abuses.

    So far ,not seeing a feasible path, perhaps you can help me see the plan beyond blowing the place up.

    But you should be glad, Alan is about a gentle breeze away from walking away from this place. It is amazing he lasted this long.

  25. fifthmonarchyman: Isn’t that the sort of thing moderators are supposed to do? Contingent on credible promises of good behavior of course.

    peace

    Never really associated J-Mac with credible…

  26. newton: Never really associated J-Mac with credible…

    I do understand, really I do.

    But I’m a Christian and we believe in second…………. and seventy seventh chances.

    As long as you’re sorry and promise to do better in the future.

    peace

  27. What is going on here? I leave TSZ for 2 days of skiing and you people want to pack your bags? lol
    Let me spell it out for you all that is painfully obvious to me….
    It seems clear that the whole hell broke loose because Mung gave keiths his contributor rights back and an author rights to me…
    Now, it seems none of the moderators loses his sleep of over keiths having contributor’s rights…Right?
    My authors rights have been taken away by DNA_Jock ( I will leave out why for another occasion)…
    Because Mung acted like a human being, for both sides of the controversy, against the “holy trinity
    of admins”, he got suspended and removed as a moderator without Lizzy’s knowledge…
    So, he made an error…So what? People make much worse mistakes than that…
    Keiths wanted to expose Swamidass’ hypocrisy… He was right but he didn’t do it right…
    People make mistakes and, in my world, we correct things and we let them gradually win our trust back…
    It’s not quantum mechanics so… It should be easy to figure it out…
    BTW: If the real issue is J-mac, he doesn’t have much time left at TSZ… 🙂 He doesn’t want everyone to know though…

  28. newton,

    You also suggested I should join Peaceful Science so I can tell them I have no intention to post at Peaceful Science.

    I think you should join the Catholic Church.

  29. newton: But you should be glad, Alan is about a gentle breeze away from walking away from this place.

    Oh can you imagine!

    Are you saying he might actually…quit?? Whoa!! Oh the humanity!

    And then what, he will only come back when he has some more vendettas to settle?

    Whew, whew…sure is hot here, boy could this place use a fan.

  30. J-Mac: Keiths wanted to expose Swamidass’ hypocrisy… He was right but he didn’t do it right…

    Who says he didn’t do it right?

    J-Mac: So, he made an error…So what? People make much worse mistakes than that…

    There was no error.

  31. phoodoo: Who says he didn’t do it right?

    There was no error.

    I agree… Sorry! Keiths didn’t do it right according to the TSZ standards, apparently…

  32. 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.

    Why is this here when it’s clearly not true?

    Other than Alan coming back for revenge, can someone explain why the original rules needed to be changed to begin with?

  33. J-Mac:

    Keiths wanted to expose Swamidass’ hypocrisy… He was right but he didn’t do it right…

    phoodoo:

    Who says he didn’t do it right?

    J-Mac:

    I agree… Sorry! Keiths didn’t do it right according to the TSZ standards, apparently…

    Not even that. Alan admitted that my OP violated no rules. So why did he ban me for 30 days? By his own account, it was because I was criticizing the moderators.

    As if that were a rule violation, and as if Lizzie hadn’t intended the Moderation Issues thread for that very purpose.

    Alan has been fighting against Lizzie’s vision for ages, yet he won’t hesitate to lay on the faux piety when he thinks it’ll work to his advantage:

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

    What’s comical is his apparent belief that readers won’t see through the lie.

  34. J-Mac,

    So, should TSZ fold then?

    No, of course not.

    See my response to Alan, which concluded thus:

    TSZ is the patient, and you are a tumor. The solution is to remove the tumor, not to kill the patient.

  35. keiths: So, should TSZ fol

    Are you really that naive, keiths?
    Lizzy couldn’t careless…actually if Alan were the cause of TSZ folding she may even appreciate that…

  36. phoodoo:
    J-Mac,

    Wouldn’t reinstating Mung, and getting rid of Alan and or Jock be a much simpler solution?

    And? Leave Neil and Mung as 2 moderators?
    Lizzy would never go for it… She obviously wants Alan to run the show for her as she simply doesn’t care anymore…

  37. phoodoo: Wouldn’t reinstating Mung, and getting rid of Alan and or Jock be a much simpler solution?

    I think that ship has sailed, Mung has said he is no longer interested in the job and I don’t think any other rational theist would be willing to play along given the current dynamics that exist in which minority moderators are forced to be a token and a lackey for “the man”.

    At least that is how the dynamic looks from this side of the fence. I’m sure the majority sees it differently.

    The question is what can be done and I’m at a loss for ideas. That does not happen very often as I’m sure you all are aware 😉

    peace

  38. fifthmonarchyman: Mung has said he is no longer interested in the job and I don’t think any other rational theist would be willing to play along given the current dynamics that exist in which minority moderators are forced to be a token and a lackey for “the man”.

    And how were Mung religious beliefs infringed on?

  39. fifthmonarchyman: and I don’t think any other rational theist would be willing to play along given the current dynamics that exist in which minority moderators are forced to be a token and a lackey for “the man”.

    I can’t guess what other theist’s might decide. But, apart from that, you are painting a completely false picture of the situation. Yes, you picked up that false picture from all of the other false things being said by some posters to this thread.

    None of us expected Mung to be a token or a lackey.

  40. fifthmonarchyman: At least that is how the dynamic looks from this side of the fence. I’m sure the majority sees it differently.

    Astute observation. I think this represents the fundamental answer to the question that Lizzie was asking: is it possible for people to park their priors at the door and have an open conversation? And the answer, online at least, is a “no”.
    There’s a knee-jerk reaction to view any act or statement through this “us vs them” tribal lens.
    Specifically, the reason that Mung failed as a moderator was not that he was in the minority, nor that he is a theist, but rather that he saw his role as acting as a counterbalance to the non-theist moderators.
    No! His role, just like the absent vjt and jonnyb, was to act as a moderator who happens to be a theist.
    Mung failed to see that difference, and therefore felt justified in conducting tribal warfare from the moderators seat. He would view moderator acts as retaliation. It’s nuts.
    But once you view it through this strictly tribal lens, and have the likes of J-Mac as a cheer-leader, then it’s game over for rational discourse. Mung was unable to rationally and honestly discuss moderation decisions.
    The experiment has run its course. As to what now, I have a couple of ideas, but they should probably wait until Mung, J-Mac, keiths and phoodoo have stuck the landing on their promised flounces.

  41. DNA_Jock,

    Is the measuring of failing as a moderator having Alan block you?

    I think that possibly is more like a sign of success.

  42. DNA_Jock,

    Hey Jock, how many times, during your ignoble run as moderator here have you warned atheist here about breaking the rules or threatened them with suspension (rubber stamping Alan against keiths doesn’t count)?

    Is the answer quite possibly zero?

    So you are an atheist moderator, no doubt.

  43. Aaaaand along comes phoodoo to prove me right.
    Thank you phoodoo.
    FYI: I am still not an atheist (although, for the purposes of this conversation I am functionally equivalent to one.)
    To answer your question, I don’t know. There are quite a few posters here whose religious beliefs are quite unclear to me.
    I think entropy and dazz are non-theists, and I have warned them. I think walto is a theist, but he’s on the “rational” side of the trenches here, and I’ve warned him. I’ve spent a fair amount of energy defending swamidass, and I’ve had as many run-in’s with keiths as anyone else. It’s not my fault if his hard-on is for Alan rather than me. Rubber-stamping it ain’t.
    And I have never, ever threatened anyone with suspension.

  44. DNA_Jock: FYI: I am still not an atheist (although, for the purposes of this conversation I am functionally equivalent to one.

    It’s funny that until this week I’d had a distinct impression that we had 3 none-theists as moderators and Mung…

    Is this another example of the Twilight Zone?
    When did DNA_Jock get converted?
    How long have I been a sleep? 🤔

  45. newton: And how were Mung religious beliefs infringed on?

    Did I say his religious beliefs were infringed on?

    What was infringed on was his ability to do what he was asked to do. That is moderate.

    peace

Leave a Reply