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.
Jock:
That’s a bad idea. The rate-limit scheme is much better, for reasons I’ve already mentioned:
He has no power to stay, all power rests with ownership.
FWIW, I think that’s fine. At some point, I suddenly found myself with author status, and while it was fun to have unlimited editing through time and space, as well as other superpowers, it was kind of scary too. I was always afraid I’d accidentally screw up–not only my own, but somebody else’s comment. Mistakenly, but irrevocably delete something somebody wrote or pump something I said into somebody else’s post, etc. I am absolutely not immune from those kinds of muck-ups.
I mean, it doesn’t matter too much in my case because I post so few OPs, but I did never ask for that status–so, given my propensity to screw everything up that I ever touch, even though I’ll miss it a little, I probably shouldn’t have it.
He can’t quit unless Lizzie let’s him?
Is she holding his children hostage?? That’s awful!
He has the power to quit , he only can remain a moderator with the owner’s consent The later concerns your “ cling to that power with all his might”.
Does not seem motivated by fear ,my guess, loyality.
walto,
That’s fine. You could always request “New Author” status instead of “Author”. That would prevent you from accidentally deleting or screwing up any comments in the thread.
The downside is that “New Author” also prevents you from fixing errors in your OP after publication. Ideally, there would be an in-between role that would allow you to edit your OPs but not the comments, but the software doesn’t provide it.
Either way, there’s no need for everyone to be demoted to “Contributor”.
Speaking of which, I have an OP that’s been waiting in the queue since yesterday.
There’s no reason we should have to wait for moderators to publish our OPs.
keiths,
I don’t publish OPs without an indication from the author. Do you want to assign categories? Do you want to add some explanatory text to indicate why the video is cool?
Alan,
Which is another reason why “make everyone a Contributor” is a bad idea. People, including me, click on “Publish” when they want to publish. They shouldn’t be required to request publication twice.
No, which is why I didn’t assign any.
No, because I trust that viewers of the video will figure that out for themselves. Anyone who doesn’t can leave questions in the comment thread.
Exactly.
Why do you think he doesn’t? Especially when you go on and on about what a thankless job it is, and how he is one small breeze away from doing so.
newton:
phoodoo:
Newton credits “loyality”:
Which is comical, given the contempt Alan has shown for Lizzie’s rules, desires, and vision.
keiths,
Right. Furthermore, why would there even be a need for loyalty. The place can’t exist without Alan manipulating it? That’s crazy.
And frankly, if I think of it, I don’t even have a dislike for Alan’s views really. But his actions here, just over and over again have been so ridiculous, that it makes no sense for him to continue as a moderator. I don’t think he has the trust of anyone, except for Newton and probably Rummy and Omagain. But that’s just because he let’s posters like them do whatever they want. He almost enjoys seeing them litter up discussion it seems. But then he becomes all sanctimonious about the rules when it comes to posters he doesn’t agree with. Even his fuck-ups aren’t consistent.
So its just so amazingly simple for him to just stop messing around, and then just post here like everyone else. Even the fact that he refuses to even answer why he can’t just do that is suspect. Why Alan? A cat got your throat? Why must you remain as the one calling all the shots here? Its good for the site? How? You said you wanted to quit. You came back just for revenge. Ok, you got your petty revenge. Why continue?
In fact, I would go so far as to say that there is probably no one (save perhaps Jock) who doesn’t think Mung could run this whole site all by himself, and not upset either side too much. And I didn’t even like Mung’s moderating frankly, because I felt he didn’t do enough. But I think no one, including myself, thinks he was unfair I believe.
So how about a vote? Everyone in favor of Mung being the only moderator?
No no, Alan doesn’t want democracy.
phoodoo,
Moderation isn’t (and shouldn’t be) a popularity contest. It’s about doing the job and honoring the owner’s stated rules, desires, and vision.
Alan, Neil, and Jock have shown that they can’t be trusted to do that. As former moderator Patrick put it:
phoodoo,
A recent example being Alan and Neil’s little-boy refusal to publish J-Mac’s OP until he agreed to a no-rules thread:
Neil:
Alan:
These same two twats have written:
Neil:
Alan:
As if Lizzie would have broken the rules, issued that ultimatum, and started a no-rules thread in hopes of getting people to pile onto J-Mac.
These guys don’t respect Lizzie — they use her as an excuse when it’s convenient, and they toss her away when it isn’t.
More proof that diversity of moderation is necessary to compensate for hidden bias.
https://digest.bps.org.uk/2019/03/27/good-news-for-science-bad-news-for-humanity-the-bias-blind-spot-just-replicated-everyone-else-is-more-biased-than-me/
PS Bonus proof that Calvinists are better at seeing their own shortcomings. 😉
peace
But, interestingly, NOT their own cognitive biases.
Something to ruminate on, that…
keiths,
Right. And I have already said I don’t like Mung’s moderation. But I still thinks he does a fair job. Which is what a moderator is there to do. And if the majority of the contributors on a site have faith that the moderator is fair, that is about all one can expect-and be encouraged to continue using the site.
What good is a moderator that the contributors don’t trust?
Oho! Let the bullies run the place! Buy ’em guns, maybe.
Already offered one possible reason.
I know, people who just go on and on and on, can be tiresome.
Not totally thankless , some people appreciate the effort expended. Lizzie ,no doubt.
Seemed to me a likely narrative.
Seems possible, keeping a promise is another. Just being too lazy, a hopeless optimist, a second child.
What is strange is she has supported his actions and left him in place despite the contempt you imagine. Weird . And leaves those who know her vision and desires to suffer grievously under the oppression of having to request to have their posts published, twice!!
You must hate when reality refuses to cooperate.
Ruminating on hidden cognitive bias is a big part of what I do. 😉
Lots of questions flow necessarily from the unhappy realization that all of us are subject to strong and innate and but hidden cognitive bias whether we recognize it or not.
One of the big ones is, what is the best way to organize groups with diverse varying perspectives given the propensity to underestimate our bias?
another one is
quote;
Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?
(Rom 7:24)
end quote: 😉
peace
You had me at “I don’t think”.
I’m sorry it can’t be whipped cream and cherries all the time. Perhaps you should consider this a learning experience? You’ll be all the stronger for it at the end? You’ll get your due reward in the next life for suffering now?
On the internet you can link to things. You could easily make a case with empirical data. Why not start an OP? Give data, make case?
First time for everything I suppose.
Ladies first.
I’d be delighted. What would you like to know?
Also, noted that you think being a woman is some kind of insult? That says a lot about who you are.
Out of interest, when I support whatever it is you want supported will you then be willing to
a) actually state what your claim/alternative is?
b) empirically support that?
Of course I already know the answers to both of those questions. You are just the type of person to ask somebody to do something you are unwilling to do yourself, but don’t see that inability as a problem.
So, what is it you want to know? I’ll google it for you then link it. I’d even be happy to buy you a text book if you write a book report. Whatever it takes…
You’re not doing it right.
😉
The study told me you’d probably say that.
That is of course why neither of us should be trusted with absolute power.
peace
Is there away to shut off blocks? I’m trying to write a new post.
stcordova,
I think you can switch to classic but give blocks a fair go. They may grow on you.
Thanks, Alan.
I have a question:
To post a new OP here, do I NOW need a permission from the newly self-appointed bureau of censorships from the Feel Good Church for Darwinists represented by Sir. Lizzy New-tone and Oh My God?
Heads up to the mods, I’m going to try to post a new thread. This wordpress BLOCK stuff is kind of obnoxious and I haven’t been able to turn it off. I did preview what my post will look like, but it won’t show how the “more” feature will actually limit the frontpage foot print.
Sooo apologies in advance if it doesn’t render properly, and thanks in advance for fixing my botched formatting if it botches.
I have an OP waiting to be reviewed and published.
Is there a moderator in the house today????
Sadly yes. Formulations of “people who don’t get X should try less intellectual endeavors” is apparently taboo. FFS, have a word with yourselves. Thinkpol is hiring.
Richardthughes,
It was a personal attack on a fellow member, including him/her in a group that you are attacking. Personal attacks are against site rules.
Alan Fox,
I didn’t name him at all or use “you”. Here’s more heresy : midgets shouldn’t play in the NBA. Feel free to take offense on some random members behalf. I see you all in another 6 months.
Rich:
Here’s Alan, from just a few months ago:
It’s the usual Alan Fox pattern. He reacts with his gut, makes a bad moderation decision, tries to find excuses for it, and makes an idiot of himself in the process.
Ceci n’est pas une pipe.
As if you hadn’t said this:
keiths,
Indeed I did say that.
QED.
But will you fix your moderation mistake? Of course not.
Meanwhile, Alan is making a fool of himself on the Holloway thread, too.
First, he guanoed some comments that were personally embarrassing to the moderators, without linking to them. When I provided the link, he guanoed my comment as if it were rule-violating. Only then did he go back and add the link to his original comment. He then guanoed some more non-rule-violating comments.
Here are the guanoed comments:
Neil:
fifth:
keiths:
keiths:
keiths:
keiths:
keiths, Not a mistake. I moved Rich’s comment to guano because it was, in my view, a thinly veiled personal attack and contained nothing substantive in mitigation.
Links are provided as a courtesy. I have no problem in providing them. There is no need for you to add your own link. It clutters a thread unnecessarily.
The Holloway thread is more likely than most to attract outside readers. Hence Alan’s desire to hide the truth about his disgrace(s), even to the point of guanoing non-rule-violating comments.
He really has morphed into a Barry Arrington, which is why Rich’s Animal Farm quote is so apt:
My comment in the other thread was only in response to claim that when it comes to moderation everything was fine by a moderator.
Can a moderator do that sort of thing in non moderation threads? Or was he out of line to say what he did?
peace
Alan,
You certainly had a problem providing one this time, and no wonder. I suppose you’ll try to tell us it was just a coincidence.
You failed to provide a link, so I stepped in and did so. My comment violated no rules and should not have been guanoed. You know this as well as I do, but you went ahead and guanoed it anyway.
“Have power, will abuse” is the Alan Fox MO.
Rhetorical question: Why does the truth frighten you so, Alan?
Liar.
His claim doesn’t even make sense. So yeah.