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.
IOW
“Some of my best friends are theists.”
Look, if you don’t trust a moderator to moderate with out your explicit approval then he is not being a moderator……… you are being a moderator and he is being your lackey.
peace
Do you think that anyone not in your corner view you as just a moderator who happens to not be a theist?
Let me help you out. No one sees it like that except folks in the majority.
I would say you mistook honest attempts to moderate as tribal warfare and I would say that is due to the fact that you are naturally suspicious of a barbarian in the seat of power.
That is not a dig on you it’s simply human nature
peace
LOL I bet he would bristle at that characterization.
It’s very interesting that you assume that he is a theist. What possibly gave you that impression? Is it because he does not always toe the party line?
peace
It became painfully obvious that Lizzy’s idea was for ID proponents to leave their priors at the door and engage in hers…
Isn’t what Patrick’s OP The Skeptical Zone is Broken was all about?
Isn’t her last statement really telling us what her real purpose was for TSZ?
“In my experience, when you reach that point, who is right becomes obvious to both parties 🙂”
She expected someone like me to leave my priors, or close my eyes and block rational thinking, for her hidden priors, or agenda, to prevail in the end…
It didn’t work…That’s a bummer… Ain’t gonna lose sleep over that…🤗
Amen !!
peace
Precisely. That was my point.
And you were able to arrive at this opinion without being privy to the conversations. Do you see what you did there?
My defending swamidass from Mung’s campaign to get him banned doesn’t really fit your tribal narrative, does it? But the narrative is neat and tidy and comforting, so we’ll skip the stuff that doesn’t fit it. I recommend Kahneman.
I understand and I agree. I am sincerely trying to overcome my baser instincts. How would you rate the various theists here?
DNA_Jock couldn’t remember that he was a theist until this week, how could he remember whether walto is a theist or not?
Whatta bloody joke! 😂
It fits the narrative exactly
You see Swamidass as a “house” theist.
He does not act like the ‘field” theists and that lets you feel good about how inclusive you are being.
I’m not saying that you are conscious in your bias.
I’m saying that we all are biased it’s just human nature.
The solution is to have real checks on power
peace
There are very few thoughtful theists left here.
That is because most of the thoughtful ones have long ago given up trying get past a pervasive anti-theist status quo. If you want more thoughtful theists to interact with you need change how things are done.
It’s that simple
peace
A wolf in sheep’s clothing?
Why would any Christian in the right frame of mind conspire with atheists to promote theistic evolution?
Why would any atheist in the right frame of mind agree?
Something is missing…🤔
We trusted him — until he demonstrated that such trust was misplaced.
You can’t.
The only thing you can do is voluntarily limit your own power.
That happens so rarely in this world it can be considered a miracle
peace
You trusted him to do what you would want him to do.
News flash…………… he is not you
peace
I have no problem with his promotion of theistic evolution. I especially like his work on genealogical Adam
I just don’t like the way he treats folks he disagrees with on the one question (ID).
but that is off topic here.
peace
Then I don’t follow your reasoning, where does theism / no theism come into play in this specific instance?
See, exactly my question, you keep bringing in mung’s beliefs, how does a theist moderate different than a non theist? Is J-Mac unfairly being restricted or are other not restricted when they should? There seem a lot of heat without any specifics.
Do you think mung should have checked before undoing what another moderator did?
Of course, you have always been clear that is your position.
Read the rest before you put an amen to it. J-Mac just laid out why giving him back Author status was a bad idea.
Not an atheist is not necessary a theist. And his ignorance of Walto’s religious leanings supports significance he places on the atheist/ theist divide.
Strange then when you constantly told others what they believed and some thought it was a rules violation, the moderator did not do anything, does that make you a “field “ theist as well.
Alan says he lobbied to give mung the moderator status he had long yearned for, does that make mung a “field “ theist?
Ah yes, not enough to believe in the Christian God, one must believe in certain “orthodox “ scientific dogma as well. You are the gift that keeps on giving .
Still not a theist, either. My, but you are slow on the uptake…
But if Walto is not a theist, then he would count as another non-theist that I have ‘sanctioned’.
I am looking quite “color-blind”, although I think that’s a pretty horrendous analogy that you are rocking with your “house” theists and “field” theists, fifth.
But you have not fallen prey to a misleading tribal narrative, no siree!
Holy shit.
(newton, I think you may have ‘house’ and ‘field’ backwards… ‘house’ theists are traitors to their tribe…)
WOW.
Theism / no theism comes into play in pretty much everything that happens here. It’s the underlying context of most every conversation.
Your inability to understand why you feeling that you can’t trust the lone theist moderator to actually moderate independently is a big deal is evidence of that fact.
peace
I never said it was a good Idea to give him Author status.
I said it was bad idea to remove the lone theist Moderator simply because he did something you did not approve of.
peace
I go out of my way to be polite and I made a point to show that position about your knowledge of God comes directly from Christian scripture and only mention it when the contrary is flatly asserted.
That some anti-theists felt comfortable in asking for such innocent comments to be removed is evidence of how much power they feel they have here.
If a moderator removed comments like that it would loudly signal that orthodox Christians are simply not permitted to speak freely here.
Not removing respectful comments taken directly from scripture is not exactly a difficult call on a site that is supposed to be about open discussion.
peace
We trusted him to work with us as a moderator team, and to do so with a different viewpoint than some of the other moderators. Unfortunately, that did not work out.
Apologies , I screwed up the metaphor which used the institution of American slavery as a comparison of the plight of theists oppressed the the heavy hand of non-believers , should be “house “ theists.
You could have met with Mung and discussed why he did what he did. You could have even reversed his action in the mean time. You could have explained your goals for a moderator team with him and made the effort to show that his actions were not in line with those Goals
What you did was remove his powers unceremoniously. That is understandable given normal human bias.
The problem with this course of action is that there is literally no one to take his place
peace
I did, the spirit was willing but the body was weak.
Actually the analogy is in how you view some of us as respectable and harmless and the rest as uncouth and potentially dangerous.
It’s not about how you treat us
peace
That was exactly what I was hoping for and additionally to agree on a policy regarding future actions. Mung opted not to continue.
You unceremoniously removed him then you asked to meet to discuss future actions.
You seriously thought this was a good way to handle a disagreement?
peace
We were in the middle of a discussion regarding Mung’s unilateral action in changing J-Mac’s status to Author” (which is a member status that has been replaced by “New Author” status*) and beginning to forge a policy regarding prior discussion before any major admin action (unless in an emergency) when Mung switched keiths to “Author” without any warning when Mung was fully aware of the restriction on keiths’ posting ability and the reason for it. (My email to keiths on the matter I shared with Mung has since been made public.) At that point, and in those circumstances, I switched Mung’s status to “Contributor” because I was more than a little concerned at the turn of events.
*Author status is no longer used following an incident where an OP and all its comments were deleted permanently by the thread author. This is not possible with the “New Author” rôle.
The disagreement* should have been resolved by the four active admins together.
*The disagreement that was already under discussion, switching member status without consultation with other admins WRT J-Mac.
The turn of events was simply a couple of easily undone moderator decisions that you disagreed with.
peace
fifthmonarchyman, There were four. The first, I reflected and thought in hindsight it was OK; The second, I didn’t really become aware of till later but it raised concerns about bias, the third was really concerning for reasons mentioned already and the fourth arose while we were in the middle of discussions as how to deal with unilateral admin decisions in future. At that point I felt unable to continue trusting Mung without some assurances. It’s possible, if Mung had decided to have a dialogue with other admins, we could have resolved our differences.
Only if that is the way you divide the world. Which of course you do. Other people put more emphasis on the actions of a person than the group they belong or a philosophical doctrine they embrace.
He did moderate independently, he freed Keiths from contributor moderation , still remained a moderator. Phoodoo started to complain about him, part of the moderator’s function . Then for some reason decided to give J-Mac Author status back , which in my opinion and it seems Mung’s as well , was a mistake. Would you have made the same decision, reverse other moderator’s decision without a heads up? Seems like a simple courtesy.
So should the moderators if they believed it was a bad decision just let it stand because mung enjoyed protected status as the lone theist moderator? Is that your position? That mung should be held to a lower standard because he is a theist?
Neil argues that they did trust before, mung was still a theist, but the action effected that trust. You dismissed that, one might argue because you believe you can’t trust a non-theist.
Maybe, but Mung choose to leave, my guess he could still be a moderator, why anyone would wish to be is beyond my understanding.
peace
That may be true, though unless your hold some unknown power over me , I doubt anything you post is potentially dangerous. Uncouth never has been a consideration.
However , no matter how many air quotes you use you are comparing the situation of slaves to the situation of theists posting on an obscure blog. Seems a bit inappropriate. Just saying.
Which he should have had every expectation would turn out the way it did.
Interesting
Maybe he doesn’t trust you. Why can’t he ban you?
Again, why is it his job for you to trust him? What if he doesn’t trust you?
So long as Lizzie has never said, ban Mung, who are you to decide that?
Why continue to post this lie?:
Lizzie’s been aware all along and, as Thomas More put it, “Qui tacet consentire videtur”.
Not that it did him any good.
DNA_Jock,
This is a lie right:
“All decisions regarding policy and implementation are hers alone.”
I’m about done here.
You all know my position.
I’m not sure how you can get yourselves out of this mess but I suggest you contact Mung and see how you can make things right.
I think an apology and contact from Lizzie might be a good gesture.
peace
Nope my position is that you should not expect Mung to act just how you desire and that you should try and work out your differences as equals and not as superiors dictating to a subordinate.
peace
Boy! lol
Nothing has changed on my side, whether I have publishing rights or not… I just have wait for the OP to be published by one of the admins…
The moderators are not only forgetful, not being able to clearly remember where they stand in their belief system, but they are also paranoid about what I would publish…
My last OP on LTEE is a perfect example of how embarrassingly paranoid they are..
They came up the warning note:
“Admin edit: This thread is, with the agreement of the thread author, a rule-free thread.]”
And what happened? Nothing…They made up a new rule and just embarrassed themselves and the owner of TSZ and I didn’t have to change a single thing in my OP… What were they hoping for with this rule-free thread? It beats me…
If I were the owner of TSZ, and I cared about my reputation, I would fire them all…
Lizzy obviously doesn’t care and the paranoid moderators continue to spread their paranoia about the huge possibility of liability, and yet, I continue to post the OPs the same way I have been just with a little delay…Big deal!
But their paranoia has spread to other members of TSZ and some of them seem to believe that I pose a great threat to whatever as if I were about to fire at everyone like Mussolini from a balcony… I have to admit, it’s quite entertaining to read but a psychiatrist or a psychologist could possibly view it differently…🤣
BTW: Isn’t Lizzy a psychologist?
Yet DNA_Jock said earlier in this very thread.
quote:
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.
end quote:
Sounds like a least one field theist was considered to be potentially dangerous. 😉
That is after all what led to the removal and the subsequent analogy.
peace
Heh. Jock is getting desperate:
By Jock’s logic, Lizzie’s silence shows that she approves of Mung’s actions.
(Ditto for Vincent and johnnyb.)
Oops.
In trying to defend the indefensible, Jock is just digging his hole deeper.
fifthmonarchyman,
Cute that you are willing to defend your analogizing between American slavery and the way theists are viewed here. By the way, I would appreciate it if you note the word “theoretically” in the sentence above. Mung missed it.
He is not banned