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.
And just what campaign was that?
But it is an admission that I didn’t violate something that did not exist in the first place.
Mung:
True. It was just a bad idea that hadn’t even been implemented yet.
As for the Swamidass business, former moderator Patrick has already noted the current moderators’ abject hypocrisy:
Mung
Hang in there. We are still in your corner. Justice will prevail eventually.
It’s guaranteed !!!
peace
The one you conducted February 9th to 11th.
Is it your claim that you did not wish to see JS banned for doxxing? Please be very clear.
You mean in a conversation with you and you alone? Is that what you mean by a “campaign”?
Please post your evidence that I approached Alan in an attempt to have Swamidass banned. Please post your evidence that I approached Neil in an attempt to have Swamidass banned. Please post your evidence that I approached you in an attempt to have Swamidass banned.
Alan had already decided that Joshua would not be banned. And it appears he had Neil’s agreement. And also that neither you or I were approached.
But you take credit for stopping me from carrying out my “campaign” to have Joshua banned.
It’s laughable, is what it is. A complete rewrite of your oh so (un-)important role in the matter.
Once again, as in the case of J-Mac, you likely misinterpreted my comments. It was like pulling teeth to even get you to admit that Joshua even engaged in doxxing.
Let me re-post this:
So once again, I am advocating that the mods make clear to someone who has asked them why they did what they did, what their reasoning was. In this specific case I wanted to know what yours was. I thought Gregory deserved an answer.
And you want to interpret that exchange as a “campaign” to get Swamidass banned. That’s really pathetic.
Mung:
And did DNA_Jock do that? Of course not. But at least finally Jock admitted (privately) that doxxing took place.
I’ve reviewed the conversation and it’s as i remembered it. I never asked for him to be banned. The reason was quite simple. I didn’t see it as an option because it was already a settled matter. Another case of me NOT going against the other mods.
I thought Gregory deserved an answer, something he was not getting from the other mods, and if none of the other mods were going to give him one I was saying I would provide one. i just wanted DNA_Jock’s side of it.
What, you think I was threatening to ban Joshua if none of the rest of you would?
LoL!
Yes, that was an example of me being responsive to concerns from the other mods about lack of notification.
Let’s recap. You asked whodunnit. I was the only mod who replied. But you couldn’t figure it out, even given my comment that J-Mac was in moderation.
So to hear you tell it you could have been reverting something Alan or Neil did. You didn’t ask ANY mod to revert the change, including me. I don’t know why you think this is a defense. Could the mod who made the change please revert it or explain why not?
But it’s never you.
DNA_Jock:
You see folks, back then it was known that i was trying to paraphrase, and that my attempts to do so were getting incoherent.
But here, in public, DNA_Jock accused me of deliberate misrepresentation of his comments. For which he wanted me removed. Personal animus.
I’m still mystified why you thought it necessary to change keiths’s status out of the blue when you already knew his account was restricted to contributor status due to his previous unresponsiveness to admin requests regarding a potentially libellous OP. Is there a connection to your apparently shared animus toward Joshua Swamidass?
Ninja’d on animus! 🙂
DNA_Jock then:
DNA_Jock now:
:facepalm:
No. My animus towards Swamidass is based on a number of factors that have nothing to do with TSZ. But it was that animus that led me to not take action against him here using my power as a moderator. It would have been unseemly.
Which is why I find DNA_Jock’s portrayal so egregiously misguided.
Mung,
OK, if not that then, why?
Mung,
Please answer the question I asked. It is a very simple one.
With that out of the way, we can move on to the fascinating subject who asked whom what when, and who has the biggest animus.
😛
Alan, in the consciousness thread:
That seems to be on Alan’s mind today. I wonder why.
(More to come on this topic.)
Because Mung was assigned as a moderator by Lizzie, so it was his job to make decisions he felt were appropriate regarding the site rules.
His job was not to make decisions he felt were appropriate according to you-that would make it pointless for him to be a moderator. Why don’t you understand that Alan?
Remember you quit being a moderator here Alan? What happened?
I wonder how many of the many atheists (agnostics, refuse to admit they are atheist..) posters who actually feel Mung was ever unfair to them as a moderator? The number could possibly be zero.
Now turn that around and ask how many of the theists feel that the rubber stamp triplets have been unfair to their side? The number could be ALL of them.
Doesn’t that indicate some kind of problem? Doesn’t that say that Mung is the only one who has the impartiality to be a moderator here?
Presently you have a group of moderators who have zero trust from the side they don’t represent. That’s good??
Is this true, DNA_Jock?
Alan has admitted doxxing & outing took place, which is why he redacted the violation. Mung obviously agrees it happened. That leaves only Neil Rickert, the latter who posts at PS.
In any case, this standoff should have nothing to do with why Mung was removed as Moderator at TSZ, which Lizzie gave no assent to.
A different question: does anyone here think Joshua S[redacted] didn’t know what outing and doxxing someone means when he did it here at TSZ?
Gregory:
Yes, according to Mung’s quote, which Jock hasn’t denied:
Gregory,
The moderators know they should have waited for Lizzie’s approval before removing Mung. After all, they waited for it in the case of Mung’s appointment, and it was Lizzie herself who stepped in and did the honors. It was a huge abuse for them not to get it in the case of Mung’s dismissal. Their belated attempts at contacting Lizzie are another indication that they recognize this.
Of course, it’s not as if this was some carefully planned thing. It was Alan throwing a tantrum and removing Mung eight minutes after Mung restored me to Author status. No emergency, just a little-boy moderator — Alan — in a rage. How many times has Alan fucked things up for the grownups here because of his lack of impulse control?
Neil and Jock — spiteful little boys themselves — raised no objections, and days later, when Alan finally came to his senses and tried to reverse the damage by restoring Mung as moderator, the two of them opposed it.
keiths,
Good grief!
Alan,
Says Alan, while offering no rebuttal whatsoever.
keiths,
Haven’t time now to deal with that litany of nonsense. May have time this evening.
Over at AtBC today, Alan got caught making a false accusation of misogyny against Rich, Patrick and me.
Here in Moderation Issues he’s recycling an old lie:
In reality, I modified my OP in response to the moderators’ concerns, even though my OP violated no rules. Neil refused to publish it. Alan knows all this, but he finds the truth inconvenient. Hence the repeated lie.
Now you know why I found Alan’s comment (from the consciousness thread) so amusing:
He’s said about fifty times now that he’s not interested in being a moderator here anymore. That bus has left the station–find a new bus.
Yes. I have noted that JS used your full name which, insofar as there are people who do not know your identity, is doxxing and additionally, if the conversation paints the subject in a negative light, is a TSZ rule violation irrespective of how well known your IRL identity is.
I will explain my view of this once Mung has clarified whether he is claiming that he did not wish to see JS banned.
I note that the post I am replying to is a rule violation. I have therefore redacted it.
But its still true right?
Kind of, but take JohnnyB or Vince. They did nothing at all, so, naturally, neither theist nor atheist will be mad about having their stuff guanoed. I don’t know if that’s a mark of impartiality so much as indifference or sloth.
walto,
Nonetheless, we have moderators who are untrusted by an entire side of the worldviews here. And that untrust is generated entirely by the skeptic atheists.
So there already exist Pandas Thumb or EvC, or a dozen others…. If that is all Lizzie wanted to create here was that, why bother? Just one more skeptical propaganda site. The web doesn’t have enough of those?
phoodoo,
I’ve always thought there should be theist in the group, and supported the inclusion first of Johnny, then of Vince, then of mung. None now want the gig. Who’s left? Should we have J-Mac? You? You two just want to fight.
I doubt FMM would be interested–and there’s the issue about him constantly calling everybody a liar–but I wouldn’t have any problem with him as a mod myself.
Or, how about Colewd? (I actually doubt anybody will be interested: it’s an awful job–would be anyhow, but it’s even worse with you, J-Mac, and keiths always at their throats.)
keiths,
We’d still be waiting. I’ve made several attempts to contact Lizzie. I also asked her to contact Mung directly. And previously Lizzie has confirmed that she expects her admins to respond to issues as they happen and not wait.
I had my doubts when Mung offered to help in admin at TSZ but I passed that offer along to Lizzie who discussed it with her other admins and the unanimous view was “let’s give it a go”. No waiting was involved. Lizzie made the announcement at my request as I thought it might be queried if another admin made that announcement.
As I said, I asked her to.
As I said, I notified Lizzie immediately on suspending Mung’s admin status. I still have not heard anything substantive from her.
This is just mischievous nonsense.
All active admins, Mung, DNA-Jock, Neil and myself were in discussion over having some joint policy regarding admin actions when Mung, out of the blue, decided to change status on keiths account when he knew it was subject to a restriction. You’re right that we didn’t plan for that.
I happened to be on-line when Mung’s message flashed up. Admins have unlimited permissions and I was concerned first to protect TSZ, then to ask Mung for an explanation. He’s published that message.
You should write for a living. Your ability to make up stories is quite impressive. BTW, I don’t think you give a stuff about Mung except as a vehicle to get unrestricted publishing rights back. This, admins are not prepared to do without some undertaking from keiths as to future compliance with TSZ rules and admin requests.
Even now, do I have to remind keiths that Mung was suspended from admin duties pending discussion. That discussion never took place and Mung decided not to continue as admin at TSZ.
You forgot Gregory! 🙂
If a theist became a moderator now he would at very best be suspected of being a lackey for the Man.
As Ive said there is a very big problem here and I don’t see how it can be fixed.
I would however suggest some honest private apologetic conversations with Mung.
peace
fifthmonarchyman,
Who would suspect you? Poll the theists–I bet you’d get a pass.
Possibly,
The problem is I would feel like a traitor to my brother in Christ if I did such a thing
peace
fifthmonarchyman,
Hmm. Let’s see.
Mung, would you consider (your “brother in Christ”) FMM a traitor if he agreed to a moderator gig here?
So like DNA_Jock you also viewed a theist moderator to be dangerous so that he must be watched lest he do damage to the site.
How could you possibly blame him? He was about to get the “do as we say or face the consequences speech.”
peace
Mung is not the lord of my conscience
peace
Frankly, yes. You don’t seem to have appreciated the circumstances. We admins, including Mung, were in the middle of a discussion regarding how to avoid the problem that arose with Mung’s unilateral action in switching J-Mac’s member permissions when Mung did it again. I was, to put it mildly, surprised.
ETA apart from “theist”. I’m not interested in anyone’s personal religious beliefs or lack of them. If anyone chooses to post or comment on religious matters, they should not be surprised to be challenged on them.
We’ll never know what may have resulted from a frank discussion of our differences. Mung chose to go public and Mung chose to not continue.
From my perspective the circumstances were you wanted Mung to do exactly what the majority said and he did not feel like being your lackey.
The way to avoid “the Problem” would have been to change J-mac back or let him continue on a trial basis and privately discuss why Mung did what moderators are supposed to do.
It would not have been a discussion, it would have been a lecture on doing what you are told
peace
fifthmonarchyman,
Well, you’re entitled to your view.
LOL The entire reason for the existence of this site is to counter what was thought to be a secret plot by religious fokes to ruin the “science” party
peace
As long as I know my place, Right
peace
That is either paranoia or a joke. Can’t decide which.
From a man who thinks theist moderators must be watched lest they do damage to the site.
peace
In case you can’t tell I’m pissed off
Time to get some fresh air