Moderation Issues (6)

Posted on by

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.

2,825 thoughts on “Moderation Issues (6)”

  2. walto: Mung, would you consider (your “brother in Christ”) FMM a traitor if he agreed to a moderator gig here?

    No. I still have hopes that one day Elizabeth will return. I have no hard feelings towards the site, towards Alan, or towards Neil.

  3. fifth,

    I would however suggest some honest private apologetic conversations with Mung.

    Former moderator Patrick had a better idea:

    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.

  4. Mung: No. I still have hopes that one day Elizabeth will return. I have no hard feelings towards the site, towards Alan, or towards Neil.

    He won’t do it though.

    You’re not the lord of his conscience, mung! So, quit it. 😩

  5. keiths: As I noted previously, the arbitrary abuse of admin privileges does far more to reduce participation in a forum than the occasional rude comment.

    True, in Patrick’s case it wasn’t “arbitrary”–it was intentional and pretty much constant.

  6. walto: He won’t do it though.

    The point is entirely moot. There is not a chance in hell someone like me would be asked to moderate here.

    peace

  7. Mung: I have no hard feelings towards the site, towards Alan, or towards Neil.

    It’s precisely because I like the idea of a site like this that I’m so upset right now.

    I don’t have anything against Alan or Neil as persons, they have been generally nice to me. That is what makes this behavior so disappointing

    peace

  8. walto:
    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.)

    No no, you are glossing right over the point Walto.

    I am not saying there should be another theist moderator, who will just get bullied by the three amigos again. That doesn’t work because Alan has a bias he wants to continue.

    What I am saying is, can’t you see the irony that on a website that is skeptical as its premise, the ONLY moderator who was trusted was a non-atheist.

    You had four, and only ONE had trust from both sides. That’s ridiculous. It tells you that the current moderators have to go. Not that we need another lackey for Alan.

    Your point is silly. Of course they should be criticized. Even you (who share the triplets general worldview) know full well the terrible job they have done.

  9. fifthmonarchyman: It’s precisely because I like the idea of a site like this that I’m so upset right now.

    I don’t have anything against Alan or Neil as persons, they have been generally nice to me. That is what makes this behavior so disappointing

    peace

    Alan has also never really protected you from the barage of insults you are subjected to here, and Alan just covers his eyes and says..”I see nothing!”

    Then says, well, if you see a rule breaking post, just point it out to me. And you do it ten times, twenty times, and what does Alan do? Ignore, obfuscate, make more excuses, threaten the one pointing out the rules violations, etc…

    I gave Alan the benefit of the doubt, over, and over and over, and he continued to show on too many occasions that it wasn’t an accident that he was being such an ass here.

  10. phoodoo: What I am saying is, can’t you see the irony that on a website that is skeptical as its premise, the ONLY moderator who was trusted was a non-atheist.

    If you mean trusted to be a moderator, he’s the third guy–out of maybe six active theist participants–to be asked to moderate. If you mean trusted as an individual, I don’t think he’s generally trusted by the non-theists here. Too much trolling behavior. I’m a soft touch, and there are a couple of others. But generally trusted? No.

    The only person really ‘trusted on both sides’ generally here is probably Vince–though you’ve been putting him through your little religious test lately, to see if he’s really theist material by your Calvinist standards. So maybe he doesn’t have one of the six theist’s ‘trust.’

  11. phoodoo: I gave Alan the benefit of the doubt, over, and over and over, and he continued to show on too many occasions that it wasn’t an accident that he was being such an ass here.

    Perhaps “ benefit of the doubt “ does not mean what you think it does.

  12. fifthmonarchyman: The point is entirely moot. There is not a chance in hell someone like me would be asked to moderate here

    Only one way to find out, volunteer to do it.

  13. He doesn’t want to. You’re not the lord of his conscience either, Newton. So you quit it, too.

  14. walto:
    He doesn’t want to. You’re not the lord of his conscience either, Newton. So you quit it, too.

    I gathered . Not wanting to be a moderator does not make it moot that that someone like him would never be asked. You don’t know that until you volunteer to be moderator.

  15. newton,

    You’re right. And I think they’d probably take him–if he’d agree not to call everyone a liar who doesn’t agree with him about truth–(pity there were no such tests when patrick took the gig). Presumably, the danger of getting accepted is why he won’t apply.

  16. “Alan had already decided that Joshua would not be banned. And it appears he had Neil’s agreement.”

    If it was the offense was ban-worthy according to Lizzie’s rules, then why wasn’t he been banned? Why didn’t the Moderators follow the rules? DNA_Jock has now agreed it was doxxing.

    Only Neil in his conventional relativism now would disagree that Swamidass didn’t dox or out me here at TSZ. Joshua’s profession of innocent ‘confusion’ about the TSZ rules doesn’t mean he didn’t know what outing & doxxing mean. He surely understood exactly what he was doing in attacking me here at TSZ, then retreating to PS where he did exactly the same thing & then later removed it.

    It’s been a surprise to me that Swamidass would stoop to such a level simply because he felt his ‘scientific neutrality’ was being questioned or unfairly affected by my posts here about his obviously low & self-serving views of ‘methodological naturalism’. Notice he didn’t come here (a place he otherwise flatters with praise) to comment in the thread I posted about how “Adam’s genealogy” has already long been addressed in the literature, while he is claiming novelty that he didn’t actually come up with on his own?

    It seems Swamidass doesn’t wish to play anywhere except for on his home turf at PS where he is protected by what he likes to call his own ‘benevolent dictatorship’ & control. http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/swamidass-genealogical-adam-vs-adams-genealogy-peaceful-scientism-on-display/

    As for J-Mac, there is no reason to enable him with Author status if everyone else isn’t so enabled. That’s been solved though, since everyone is now just a Contributor except for Mods/Admins, right? Same with the other person Mung is accused of abetting here.

  17. Gregory: If it was the offense was ban-worthy according to Lizzie’s rules, then why wasn’t he been banned? Why didn’t the Moderators follow the rules? DNA_Jock has now agreed it was doxxing.

    Actually, this was the argument that I thought Mung was making in February, but he is now strangely reticent as to whether he wanted JS banned, leading me to wonder if I may have misunderstood him.
    Would you care to clarify, Mung? Did you wish to see JS banned?

  18. Gregory: If it was the offense was ban-worthy according to Lizzie’s rules, then why wasn’t he been banned? Why didn’t the Moderators follow the rules?

    From what I understand, Swamidass claimed to not have been aware of the rule against doxxing and he promised to not do it again. We finally have something that I actually disagreed with the other mods about. But was there a campaign to get him banned? No.

    Had he posted porn or malware no doubt he would have been forgiven for that as well. Or maybe it was who he outed that gave him the pass. No matter how you look at it, allowing him to get away with it looks bad.

    Gregory: DNA_Jock has now agreed it was doxxing.

    DNA_Jock:

    When I [DNA_Jock] wrote:

    “I do not have an opinion on whether Joshua engaged in doxxing [at TSZ] — if you produce the evidence, I will review it.”

    I [DNA_Jock] meant what I wrote. (I suspect that you interpreted this, incorrectly, as an assertion that no doxxing took place.) I was subsequently able to find such evidence, no thanks to you.

    So it would appear that I was carrying out a campaign to get Joshua banned without actually presenting any evidence that Joshua had engaged in doxxing. Silly me. My response to DNA_Jock:

    DNA_Jock:

    I suspect that you interpreted this, incorrectly, as an assertion that no doxxing took place.

    Yes, I [Mung] thought you were saying that no doxxing had taken place and I was trying to figure out why you thought so because it seemed rather obvious to me that it had.

    If you were merely asking for evidence that it had taken place that goes lost somehow.

    Thanks

    And that is where the conversation ended. Right DNA_Jock? No demand for him to be banned. Just a request for an honest answer as to whether doxxing took place.

    DNA_Jock: I will explain my view of this once Mung has clarified whether he is claiming that he did not wish to see JS banned.

    Of course I thought he should be banned. You and Alan and Neil should have though so as well. Prima facie he should have been banned. I should not have to defend myself, you and the other mods should have to defend yourselves.

    You made a joke of Joe G’s banning and Elizabeth’s rules. Porn and malware can now likewise be excused. That’s the can of worms you opened.

    And speaking of Joe G. Elizabeth has shown herself willing to offer second chances. So with regard to J-Mac and keiths I was doing no less than what Elizabeth might have done.

  19. DNA_Jock: Actually, this was the argument that I thought Mung was making in February, but he is now strangely reticent as to whether he wanted JS banned, leading me to wonder if I may have misunderstood him.

    That you misinterpreted me pretty much goes without saying. It’s a consistent pattern with you as I have shown. Even if I thought JS should have been banned it doesn’t follow that I was arguing for him to be banned in our exchange.

    You’ve presented no evidence that I was “campaigning” for him to be banned. None. You’ve also presented no evidence in support of your earlier lie about me.

    You fail as a mind-reader. You really ought to give it up.

  20. walto:
    newton,

    You’re right. And I think they’d probably take him–if he’d agree not to call everyone a liar who doesn’t agree with him about truth–(pity there were no such tests when patrick took the gig). Presumably, the danger of getting accepted is why he won’t apply.

    It would be an interesting experiment to see. Too bad he is a conscientious objector to the duties and power of the moderation position.

  21. Gregory: If it was the offense was ban-worthy according to Lizzie’s rules, then why wasn’t he been banned? Why didn’t the Moderators follow the rules? DNA_Jock has now agreed it was doxxing.

    Let Mung explain:

    “And speaking of Joe G. Elizabeth has shown herself willing to offer second chances. So with regard to J-Mac and keiths I was doing no less than what Elizabeth might have done.”

  22. I honestly doubt that anyone really cares, but for the sake of completeness, I am going to go a little meta here.
    I am going to provide the conversation that Mung and I had regarding JS and GS. I may provide some side comments, but (unlike Mung’s excerpts) I will provide the chronological record.
    Here’s how it started:
    Mung to Jock

    Do you agree with Alan and Neil that doxxing is not a banable offense?
    I think that Gregory deserves an answer. I’d like to give him one. But you Alan and Neil have yet to “step up to the plate.” I’m willing to do what you appear Alan and Neil appear unwilling to do. But I’d like to hear from you.

    Jock to Mung

    Please provide references for
    1. the alleged doxxing
    2. Alan and Neil’s statements that doxxing is not a bannable offense.
    I ask since the most recent doxxing I can recall is keiths doxxing Patrick…
    My prejudice (no more) is that doxxing is an offense for which one might be banned.
    OTOH, it is undoubtedly one of the few cases where redaction/editing of another’s comments is indicated (NSFW and malware being the others).

    Mung to Jock

    Thank you for your response.
    So you would say that posting of porn or malware is simply an offense for which one might be banned and that no violation of the rules actually requires any action at all from the moderators?
    And to be clear, you don’t think that Swam idass actually engaged in doxxing? I ask this because for me the Swam idass incident is the most recent case of doxxing.

    Jock to Mung

    Was I unclear?
    Joe G posted NSFW material. For this, he was not banned. He was banned for refusing to promise not to repeat.
    Again, please provide references for
    1. the alleged doxxing
    2. Alan and Neil’s statements that doxxing is not a bannable offense.
    I do not have an opinion on whether Joshua engaged in doxxing — if you produce the evidence, I will review it.

    Mung to Jock

    So you do not believe that Swam idass actually engaged in doxxing, in spite of his clear acknowlodgement of what he did. Why don’t you just say so, in Moderation Issues? Why not post your response to Gregory’s allegations so that we can be done with this?

    The problem is with Mung’s mode of engagement.
    I am trying to determine what the facts are, and then form an opinion. Mung is, with every “so you don’t think…”, attempting to put words into my mouth or otherwise manipulate me into the position he wants me to hold.
    This mode of engagement is NOT conducive to any drive to consensus. Mung does not seek consensus, he is spoiling for a fight.
    Note that he failed to provide any evidence to support his positions. In point of fact, JS HAD doxxed GS at TSZ, but Mung did not do anything about it except whine. I had to go find it myself.

    But no, Mung did not want JS banned. And any suggestion that “he saw his role as acting as a counterbalance to the non-theist moderators” is a lie, apparently.

    There’s more where this came from, I’m afraid.

  23. DNA_Jock
    February 9, 2019 1:58 pm

    IMO, Swami dass did something extremely scuzzy – linking Gregory’s full name to his Peaceful Science a—-y handle, against Gregory’s wishes. He has since undone it. However, this behavior did not occur at TSZ.
    Has Gregory complained about the use, at TSZ, of his full name? He links to his own articles quite often…
    Regarding

    So you do not believe that Swami dass actually engaged in doxxing, in spite of his clear acknowlodgement of what he did. Why don’t you just say so, in Moderation Issues?

    I did.

    Mung
    February 10, 2019 3:51 pm

    You say that this did not occur at TSZ, as if that matters. But aside from that, it did in fact occur at TSZ. Alan also agrees that he broke TSZ rules. And he used both Gregory’s first and last name.
    Is it your position then that it is not even possible to dox Gregory because some of us know who he is?

    DNA_Jock
    February 10, 2019 5:31 pm

    You say that this did not occur at TSZ, as if that matters.

    Duh. Of course it matters.

    But aside from that, it did in fact occur at TSZ. Alan also agrees that he broke TSZ rules. And he used both Gregory’s first and last name.

    JS used Gregory’s full name when attacking him. That is wrong (and a TSZ rule violation). JS did also reveal (at TSZ) the handle that Gregory was using at PS. That was a betrayal of trust, and wrong.

    Is it your position then that it is not even possible to dox Gregory because some of us know who he is?

    No. “Doxxing” is when you reveal someone’s IRL identity to people who did not previously know it, e.g. revealing “a—-y@PS = Gregory S[redacted]”. Revealing that “Gregory@TSZ = a—-y@PS” might be wrong, but doxxing it ain’t.
    Revealing that “Gregory@TSZ = Gregory S[redacted]” is doxxing, for those who did not already know.
    I was merely enjoying the irony of Gregory complaining about someone using his full name. It is the sort of hypocrisy that you are quick to call out. Usually.

    Okay, so I got a little snarky by the end. But the idea that Mung was not arguing (and in a combative manner) that JS should be sanctioned is, to use his term, “laughable”.

  24. Jock quotes himself:

    Revealing that “Gregory@TSZ = Gregory S[redacted]” is doxxing, for those who did not already know.

    …says Jock, who, according to his own standards, doxxed Gregory by quoting that very statement.

  25. keiths,

    Do I vaguely recall someone posting an OP involving a video? Back in 2014, I think?

    ETA *chuckles* Why, yes, I do. Guess who was author! Guess who was outed! Guess who wasn’t banned!

  26. Alan,

    Read it again:

    …says Jock, who, according to his own standards, doxxed Gregory by quoting that very statement.

  28. DNA_Jock,

    I can see where you are coming from: mung was definitely avoiding answering direct questions, and that is, as you say, not conducive to consensus.

    But to be fair, you are hard to understand–and sometimes seem to be that way on purpose. For example,

    Mung: Is it your position then that it is not even possible to dox Gregory because some of us know who he is?

    Jock: No. “Doxxing” is when you reveal someone’s IRL identity to people who did not previously know it.

    What the hell does the “No” mean there? No it’s not your position or No it’s not possible or No it’s possible or No you’re wrong? And if the sentence following the No is supposed to be clarificatory, it’s not. Does the “people” mean everyone here or just someone here? If one person besides Gregory knew his full name here would what Swamidass did no longer be doxxing? What are you saying there, exactly?

    I’m not suggesting there are simple answers to what is or isn’t doxxing (or that there are hard ones, but I nevertheless know what they are). I’m just saying that your tendency to scholasticism sometimes makes your remarks no clearer than Scotus’s. I don’t know if it’s intentional, but maybe if you realize this, you’ll try to stop doing it. Just say what you mean and mean what you say. Don’t try to be so cute/coy all the time. Maybe it’s your “I’m just so much cleverer than you” vibe that set mung off.

  29. Alan:

    Do I vaguely recall someone posting an OP involving a video? Back in 2014, I think?

    ETA *chuckles* Why, yes, I do. Guess who was author! Guess who was outed! Guess who wasn’t banned!

    Alan is so cute when he gets excited. It’s a shame that I have to burst his bubble.

    My OP was in 2014. Here’s Lizzie, in 2015::

    ETA 13th June 2015: please read the guidlines in ETA6 below and note that the rule applies even if the person in question has made the information possible to find out)

    Alan, which came first — 2014, or 2015?

    This reminds me of Neil’s self-incrimination in the Summaries thread, where he asked Lizzie for a rule allowing the moderators to suspend people. But the moderators had already suspended me.

    Oops.

    So DNA_Jock shoots himself in the foot, and I point that out.

    Alan swoops in for a ‘gotcha’ and faceplants instead.

    Neil, on the witness stand, incriminates himself and the other moderators.

    You’re right, Alan. It is funny.

    *chuckles*

  31. walto,

    Good points.

    In general, I try to be very careful in my use of language.
    So, in the exchange you quoted, the “No” is in response to the Yes/No question: no, that is not my position. And the following sentence(s) are intended as the clarification: it’s doxxing insofar as Gregory’s IRL ID was previously unknown. I provided three examples for clarification. I am pretty careful to mean what I say.
    I have, however, laid traps before now. keiths just fell into one, for instance…

    Many commenters here thrive on ambiguity. Take Sal, for instance.

    No really, I mean it: keep him.

    And don’t knock Scotus, mate…

  32. DNA_Jock:
    And the following sentence(s) are intended as the clarification: it’s doxxing insofar as Gregory’s IRL ID was previously unknown.

    I honestly don’t understand how it is possible to “doxx” someone whose “real-life ID” has been in the public domain for many years. Gregory was posting Youtube videos of his own lectures at least as far back as 2012. I vaguely recall that he publicised the videos himself, though it may not have been at this venue.

  33. timothya,

    He links to his own articles often enough too.
    So we are left with Lizzie’s rule that you don’t use someone’s full name when attacking them because of Google:

    But if in breaking those rules, you invoke someone’s personal ID, that is not on, the reason being that I don’t want such personal attacks here to come up in a google search of that person’s RL name…

  35. DNA_Jock:
    timothya,

    He links to his own articles often enough too.
    So we are left with Lizzie’s rule that you don’t use someone’s full name when attacking them because of Google:

    The rule is obsolescent. If I go to Google and search for three words associated with his interests, I get his professional bibliography. If I were to write those three words here, have I doxxed him? And guess what, TSZ turns up in the search results.

  37. Can I have my OP published? Or, has anything changes since last week? I have not been following the dramatic exchange here since last week…Have I missed anything important other than the usual drama????

  38. DNA_Jock: The problem is with Mung’s mode of engagement.
    I am trying to determine what the facts are, and then form an opinion. Mung is, with every “so you don’t think…”, attempting to put words into my mouth or otherwise manipulate me into the position he wants me to hold.

    LoL. That’s your take on it, no doubt. But it speaks to my intent, which you are unqualified to address. You fail at mind reading. Please try to remember that.

  39. Mung: LoL. That’s your take on it, no doubt. But it speaks to my intent, which you are unqualified to address. You fail at mind reading. Please try to remember that.

    DNA_Jock is no Joke… She/He designed enzymes from scratch better than sheer dumb luck… Can you believe it?

  40. I can’t believe that you all are still discussing the original disagreement.

    It’s time to just face the fact that “mistakes” were made in the decision to remove Mung’s moderation authority and work on cleaning up the mess.

    newton: It would be an interesting experiment to see.

    Can you just imagine Keith’s response if a wanna be puritan was in charge here. 😉

    newton: Too bad he is a conscientious objector to the duties and power of the moderation position.

    I will not be a moderator here for the same reason I would not be a scab/strikebreaker if I agreed with the complaints of the workers

    peace

  41. There’s a pattern of behavior, Mung,

    For example, you whined
    Mung:

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

    I replied

    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.

    Mung offers a recap:

    DNA_Jock:

    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

    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?

    Given that you are replying to and quoting from a comment in which I include my request for J-Mac to be moved back to “Contributor” immediately, your “You didn’t ask ANY mod to revert the change” is a lie.
    You do this a lot.

  42. J-Mac: DNA_Jock is no Joke… She/He designed enzymes from scratch better than sheer dumb luck

    I made that claim, and you refused to believe me, so I posted the sequence, with the simple question :
    “See if you can spot the extra bit that I added, J-Mac?”
    You let Sal do the ‘heavy lifting’ for you, but still failed to answer the question. Almost as if you don’t know what you’re talking about.
    Much hat, zero cattle.

  43. DNA_Jock: I made that claim, and you refused to believe me, so I posted the sequence, with the simple question :
    “See if you can spot the extra bit that I added, J-Mac?”
    You let Sal do the ‘heavy lifting’ for you, but still failed to answer the question. Almost as if you don’t know what you’re talking about.
    Much hat, zero cattle.

    So, you claim that you had designed an enzyme from scratch, better than natural, right? I just want to make sure you say that…
    I hope you know why… 😉
    Sal?

  44. J-Mac, you can click on the blue text– it’s a link — it will take you to see the original claim, viz:

    P.S. I designed and built a synthetic enzyme that was better than the naturally occurring one, so I do know something about that: I know that you are wrong.

    Back then, it was the metric “better” that you sought to make fun of. Kinda ironic in view of your one-dimensional view of ApoB function.
    Cute to see you now shift the goalposts to “from scratch”; not something that I claimed, kiddo. Although I did design how to build it from scratch, and paid some guys to do just that.
    You’re all hat.

  45. WTF, DNA_Jock? How would you like people doing what you just did, adding a single space to your IRL name & posting it here as if that’s ok? I do not wish to have any name other than the single name I use here associated with this site. Is that clear enough?

    keiths is correct that DNA_Jock, “according to his own standards, doxxed Gregory by quoting that very statement.” It has already been redacted.

    These two should be redacted again:

    Moderation Issues (6)

    Moderation Issues (6)

    “It is part of the founding philosophy of TSZ that no-one ‘deserves’ to be banned. People are banned for one reason only: to ensure that we don’t get posts containing the very narrow range of material that is not allowed here, namely porn/malware (or links to); and material that gives the RL identity of people known to us by their internet names, without their permission (also known, I understand, as “doxxing”).”

    Should Joshua Swamidass be banned from TSZ or not? If a person commits a bannable offense at TSZ, according to the rules, should they be banned or not? If doxxing = bannable, then Swamidass should be banned, according to the verdict of Alan, DNA_Jock & Mung. Simple.

    Joshua did not have my permission & obviously acted maliciously. The doxxing was later edited, as it should have been sooner, & now should be again. Pretty clear cut really.

    Am I pressing for Dr. Swamidass to be banned? No. It’s on his conscience. I’m willing to forgive & forget.

  46. How do I put a “more” tag in my new Post? This BLOCK stuff is not working for me. I like the old way of doing business better. Thanks in advance.

  47. Gregory,
    Regarding whether JS “should” be banned from TSZ:
    Please re-read the paragraph of Lizzie’s that you quoted, bearing in mind that

    Joe G posted NSFW material. For this, he was not banned. He was banned for refusing to promise not to repeat.

    Regarding the use of your last name, with or without the added space:
    As you wish.

  48. Gregory: I’m willing to forgive & forget.

    That’s very reasonable of you, Gregory. I can’t imagine Joshua doing that here again in any event and everyone is clear what the consequences would be if he did.

  49. fifthmonarchyman: I will not be a moderator here for the same reason I would not be a scab/strikebreaker if I agreed with the complaints of the workers

    Socialist Workers’ Party guy! Go get ’em laborite!

Leave a Reply