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.
Wrong verb there, keiths. Nobody ever suggested that More approved of the 1534 Act of Supremacy. Are you deranged?
By Thomas More‘s logic, Lizzie’s silence shows that she consented to Mung’s actions, and that she consented to his removal.
She had about 12 hours to voice her objections to Mung’s actions before they were reversed. She’s had 17 days to voice her objections to Mung’s dismissal as a moderator. Maybe she will show up and prove you right, but I doubt that, given what she said about him when we were discussing inviting him to become a moderator.
Could be , then by her continued silence she also approved of the actions which resulted from mung’s actions.
Why don’t you ask them?
Yep.
Nice innuendo.
Lets be explicit……
I’m analogizing between the way some southerners viewed “the other” and the way specifically you apparently view theists with moderation privileges……… As something to be closely monitored because they “could theoretically do a lot of damage”
Like I said before this is a big deal and I’m not sure how you fix it.
Focusing a little less on me and a little more on doing the right thing might be a start.
peace
Okay, let’s be explicit: you first used the analogy thus:
I voted for Mung to become a moderator, which would make him…
But defend away.
It would make him the token barbarian in the club. A token to appease the other theists who were complaining about the lack of diversity. Just as I’ve been saying.
You did not mind him being called a moderator you just did not want him acting like one lest he “theoretically do a lot of damage”.
peace
To me, all this proves she doesn’t give a damn…
I’m very angry right now. I need to step away for a while.
If I’ve spoken in haste and said something that was uncalled for I apologize. I don’t think that is the case but perhaps I’ll feel different later on
peace
Think that was ongoing when mung raised the bet.
Maybe so, take care.
I see that my simple point sailed right over Jock’s and newton’s heads.
I’m not arguing that Lizzie’s silence indicates her approval of Mung’s actions. I’m pointing out that if Jock’s dumb logic were actually correct, then her silence would indicate approval of Mung’s actions, as would Vincent’s and johnnyb’s. It’s a standard DNA_Jock foot-shot.
Jock’s logic isn’t correct, obviously. Lizzie’s silence can’t be taken as approval of Mung’s actions, and it can’t be taken as approval of AlaNeilJock’s illicit actions either.
Just to drive the point home, think how ridiculous it would be to argue that “Vincent and johnnyb haven’t responded, so we know they’re on board with the decision to depose Mung.”
That’s Jock logic.
That would make two of you.
You are right! And he got removed when he acted in good faith but against the regime of atheists…I don’t care if now they claim to be closet theists or agnostics…
I should have suspected it…It’s 5 o’clock…😥
That’s affirmative, Houston.
Qui tacet, consentire videtur.
keiths:
newton:
So your hypothesis is that Lizzie both approved of Mung’s actions and thought he should be canned for them. Um, newton…
Also, gotta love your selective interpretation of Lizzie’s silences.
When it’s convenient, you interpret her silence as approval. When that’s inconvenient, you do the opposite.
Jock,
As if that would rescue your argument. Silence isn’t an indication of consent any more than it is of approval.
You’ve taken a dumb and unsuccessful argument and made it… dumb and unsuccessful.
As I wrote above:
Learn to stop digging, Jock.
Former TSZ moderator Patrick left a couple of comments at AtBC today that are worth reposting here. Here’s the first one:
Patrick Mar. 24 2019, 12:44
For the past few days I’ve been hearing about more admin abuse at The Skeptical Zone. I tried to ignore it, but I find myself still invested. When Elizabeth was active at TSZ, under her benevolent dictatorship it was one of the best discussion sites I’ve seen since Usenet deteriorated. While ID is moribund and discussions of it increasingly uninteresting, TSZ could be that high quality again if Elizabeth’s vision were followed. I’d be saddened if it continued its current downward spiral.
As briefly as possible, here’s what I’ve been pinged on over the past few months:
1) Three admins (Alan, Neil, and DNA Jock) abused their privileges to settle a personal score with keiths. The details are a couple of pages back in this thread: http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=14;t=7304;st=1110#entry269299 The named admins edited other people’s posts, removed comments, ignored Elizabeth’s explicit instructions on how to handle the issue, banned keiths for 30 days, and placed me in pre-moderation. None of what they did is allowed by the rules and much of it is explicitly prohibited. Alan ran away from the discussion here [at AtBC].
2) DNA Jock admitted to moving comments to Guano that didn’t violate any rules: http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/moderation-issues-5/comment-page-41/#comment-240437 This is the most minor of the complaints I heard, but it’s part of a pattern of admins ignoring the rules.
3) Neil abused his privileges to close an active thread: http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/munging-id/comment-page-5/#comment-244706 This is not allowed by the rules.
4) Joshua Swamidass threatened to dox Gregory: http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/moderation-issues-6/comment-page-5/#comment-244795 and not one admin said a word. He then followed through on his threat: http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/moderation-issues-6/comment-page-6/#comment-244917 The unredacted version stayed up for days until someone responded to Gregory’s complaint. Even then, Swamidass was let off with a warning. The double standard demonstrated by the difference in response to this bannable offense and keiths’ post that didn’t violate any rules is striking.
5) Finally, Alan removed Mung as an admin, a mere eight minutes after Mung undid the previous admin abuses by changing keiths’ status: http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/moderation-issues-6/comment-page-13/#comment-249845 There is nothing in the rules that allows anyone other than Elizabeth to take this serious an action. Alan, in collusion with Neil and DNA Jock, has basically staged a coup. He has taken TSZ far from Elizabeth’s goals and vision.
Mung provided a detailed explanation of the situation: http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/moderation-issues-6/comment-page-17/#comment-250558 FifthMonarchyMan provided a succinct summary of why this abuse by the admins was particularly bad (http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/moderation-issues-6/comment-page-17/#comment-250657): “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’.” DNA Jock demonstrated his inability to see it in the following comment, so FFM made it more clear (http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/moderation-issues-6/comment-page-18/#comment-250670): “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.”
Interestingly, it appears that Mung was the only admin interested in following the rules about doxxing. DNA Jock admits that he refused to enforce Elizabeth’s clear rules (http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/moderation-issues-6/comment-page-18/#comment-250675): “My defending swamidass from Mung’s campaign to get him banned . . . .” Once again it is FFM who points out DNA Jock’s bias (http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/moderation-issues-6/comment-page-18/#comment-250677): “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.”
It’s clear that the heading at the top of TSZ’s Moderation Issues thread is a lie: “We remind participants that TSZ is a benign dictatorship, the property of Dr. Elizabeth Liddle. All decisions regarding policy and implementation are hers alone.” Alan does what he wants at TSZ, Elizabeth’s explicit directions, rules, and most importantly vision for the site be damned.
Here’s the second one:
Patrick Mar. 24 2019, 12:46
J-mac asks the hard but obvious question (http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/moderation-issues-6/comment-page-17/#comment-250628): “So, should TSZ fold then?”
If Alan, Neil, and DNA Jock remain as admins, that question will answer itself. As I noted previously, the arbitrary abuse of admin privileges does far more to reduce participation in a forum than the occasional rude comment. Alan, Neil, and DNA Jock have clearly demonstrated that they cannot be trusted with those privileges. They owe apologies to keiths, Mung, and Elizabeth specifically and the TSZ community generally.
(Note that I’m only criticizing their abuses of admin privileges. When I was active at TSZ, I made a point of reading all of their posts and comments, DNA Jock’s especially.)
To answer J-Mac’s question, I would not like to see TSZ fold. I find Elizabeth’s goals and vision for the site to be admirable. They are worth working to achieve. There are three immediate steps that Elizabeth could take to realign with those. First and most important, remove Alan, Neil, and DNA Jock as admins. They’ve demonstrated that they are not supportive of Elizabeth’s vision and cannot be trusted to be unbiased. As replacements, she could do worse than keiths and Mung, both of whom have demonstrated far more dedication to Elizabeth’s goals.
Second, increase the breadth of topics to include everything mentioned in the first two paragraphs of the “About this site. . .” page: “My motivation for starting the site has been the experience of trying to discuss religion, politics, evolution, the Mind/Brain problem, creationism, ethics, exit polls, probability, intelligent design, and many other topics in venues where positions are strongly held and feelings run high.” There used to be a subset of posts discussing philosophy. Those and additional topics should be encouraged. IDCreationism is dead, but TSZ can live on.
Third, attract more new participants. Replacing the abusive admins is one part of that, but the front page of the site needs to be more appealing. J-Mac might have asked a good question, but his posts and those of some others make TSZ look like a crank site. Let anyone post, but by default show only the highest quality posts to new visitors. This is as simple as a switch on the page that flips between “Featured” and “New”. Yes, there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth about what gets featured, but like porn, most people know crankery when they see it.
Elizabeth’s vision is worth supporting. I’d hate to see The Skeptical Zone become just another version of UD.
Darwinism is dead. What’s left to discuss? The devolution of a 5 pound land walking mammal into a 50 ton whale?🤗
She could have done that anytime, why should mungs’ meltdown as a moderator be a catalyst for changes which will require the expenditure of time for which she has shown no interest? Realistically, why would she?
They all have two vital characteristics, they were dumb enough to agree to take the job and she trusts them to support her vision the best they can while bothering her as little as possible. Not your interpretation of her vision but the actual one she set up.
Right,I am sure she has no hard feelings toward either of them.On the plus side, both have demonstrated their levelheadedness , there is actual evidence of the soundness of their judgement.
Really, some think the admins are too permissive as it is.
I have not noticed while reading the moderation thread anyone clamoring for more, more J-Mac.
Funny , the present owner’s actual vision of the website included none of those things.
And keith and mung are capable of making all those things happen at no cost to the owner and willing to spend the time to do it and maintain it?
You should make her a cash offer, you could have carte blanche. It would be fun to see how it turns out.
No, according to your premise.
And as far as I can tell Mung, offed himself by restoring you to author status after the kerfuffle with J-Mac. Even then he probably could have remained moderator, at least long enough to do it again. So resigned sounds more accurate.
But like your “situation” she has not reprimanded the moderators.Plenty of opportunity. not a word. How long has it been?
Thanks, in your case it is not that hard. The rest might depend on when she has to write the check. Your best hope ,as I see it, is the present moderators say fuck it.
Actually no, it is always approval. The silence always supports the status quo.
Hahaha. Jock’s scholasticism grows apace. Here he is on the important “approves/consents to” distinction. Dunno about everyone else, but I’m personally waiting for him to chime in on the equally crucial doubtful/dubious distinction.
(Incidentally, I don’t actually think he’s got approves/consents to right here, but I mean, who the f cares?)
walto,
Heh. Jock is a hoot.
What’s even funnier than the word lawyering itself is that he thought the distinction would help him salvage his argument. ‘Fraid not, Jock.
keiths:
newton:
keiths:
newton:
It was Jock’s premise, and you were goofy enough to get on board with it.
Patrick:
newton:
It’s telling that you see the choice as being between permissiveness and abuse.
@ keiths
I understand this is frustrating. I’ve made several efforts to contact the site owner without success. Until there is some indication from Lizzie as to where TSZ goes from here, we remain in Limbo. Not that you will listen to me but why not raise your concerns with her directly?
Alan Fox,
Remaining in limbo isn’t the only option Alan. Why don’t you just go back to original rules, just as Lizzie intended them, and then you just butt out? What’s so hard about that?
Why are you so loathe to give up your stranglehold Alan?
Alan Fox,
So many of the things you have done here have been against Lizzie rules Alan. Then you act as if your are powerless to just let her rules apply.
You know you can still post here all you want, without having to act as if the site is yours right?
Kinder, gentler DNA_Jock has promised himself he will only correct keiths when keiths repeats his error (preferably by quoting himself authoritatively…)
Actually that is precisely what it is, an indication of consent.
Since at least 1534, it has been the assumption that “He who remains silent is seen to consent.” The longer quote includes “if they should and can speak”, as in “qui tacet consentire videtur si loqui debuisset ac potuisset”
The International Court of Justice used this when it ruled against the Thai government in 1962, pointing out that the appearance of consent had been steadily accumulating since 1904. It’s a rather familiar legal concept.
Let’s see if I can keep to this.
DNA_Jock,
If Lizzie consented to all of Mungs actions, why would Alan take action against Mung?
Ah, phoodoo, that’s where the “if they should and can speak” bit comes in: the more opportunity that someone has to voice their dissent, the more their failure to do so indicates consent.
So 12 hours or six minutes for screw-ups #3 and #4 (the big ones).
For the dismissal, 19 days and counting.
Admittedly, Thailand waited 50 years to assert their claim over Preah Vihear, but that’s an extreme case.
e4typo
True, however when you used the phrase “ By Jock’s logic” you accepted his logic to make your argument. That was your premise, “by Jock’s logic” such and such follows.
I disagreed with your interpretation of what follows from “ Jock’s logic”.
It has been reported that no one but keiths and mung were aware of the mung’s action of restoring keiths’s the author status before the moderators acted upon finding out.
Should we really be ‘fraid, fearful or scared? These distinctions could be absolutely key here.
ETA: I said “here” above but I didn’t mean to exclude Thailand…or 16th Century Britain.
newton,
No, Mung announced the change of keiths’s status to author to all admins when he did it. He didn’t sign the announcement, but I think we figured who it was pretty quickly.
It was the change in J-Mac’s status that was silent.
Potential source of confusion: I was not informed when he took keiths out of moderation. If I had been asked, I would have supported that action, so I have never viewed that as an issue — in fact, that may have been his finest hour.
newton,
I reacted to Mung’s admin message:
I was logged in at the time so I saw the message banner come up on my screen immediately.
Was Lizzie included in that announcement?
No admins were. My initial reaction was, hey! but then I thought it was no big deal.
newton,
Yes.
ETA: with the proviso she may not have read her PMs and admin messages. There’s a count which indicates one admin has not picked up messages recently, though I suspect that would be johnnyb.
The mystery of why Alan is so fearful of losing his power here continues….
I don’t carry a grudge with anyone here. Even with Swamidass outing & doxxing me here recently, well, that’s on him & his scorn for being incoherent about methodological naturalism & trying to defend his soft-authoritarian, confessing dictatorial approach to PS from his true actions there. The Moderators did nothing in response to his rule breaking ban-able offense & only Mung stood up for the TSZ rules, until Alan finally relented & edited the posts.
It’s Alan, after all, who is paying for this site, not Lizzie anymore: right or wrong? (I’ve only followed TSZ loosely in recent months)
Can I ask: on what grounds are the privileged 7 Authors given above everyone else who is a mere Contributor? Shouldn’t only Moderators be given Author status/access? Frankly, I don’t care to be an Author, though apparently I once held that status & level of access here. My posts are always uploaded from the queue after asking in Moderation.
I expect little better than what we’re now seeing in a ‘zone’ for skeptics, atheists, agnostics & anti-theists with a few generic or esoteric theists-IDists. The 2 or 3 actual Abrahamic theists know who they are & aren’t much bothered by the swamp.
AIUI, that is a historical accident: those 8 achieved their exalted rank before the creation of the “New Author” category, which was precipitated by some Author shenanigans, apparently. There are 95 “New Authors”. The idea, going forward, is that all posters should be Contributors.
Lizzie pays (and always has) for the server space. I only pay for the storage space for the data saving plugin.
Not really , it was in response to this
“Third, attract more new participants.Replacing the abusive admins is one part of that,”
First ,”abusive” is a fact not in evidence. If the owner approves of the decisions made , it is not abusing the rules. So in we now have
“Third, attract more new participants.Replacing the (possibly abusive) admins is one part of that”
If one replaces the present moderators with likely even more laissez faire versions or none at all , those who want less J-Mac, no offense intended, would not be attracted as new members.
And that is what was telling from my comment.
Now you might make the argument that there is an untapped market for that libertarian nirvana.
You really are a glutton for punishment.
Just curious, any examples of actual blogs that qualify as better than just acceptable in your opinion?
Thanks, I guess being a moderator is not all glory and the abuse of one’s awesome power.
walto:
Heh. DNA_Jock’s self-parody continues.
And yet…cling to that power with all his might he continues.