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.
DNA_Jock,
For goodness sake, is it too much to ask to remove the first letter of the name? You’ve doxxed me yourself now, though I expect no apology from you.
Joshua’s apology for doxxing, ironically, was to the 3 atheist Moderators here, not to me, a fellow Abrahamic theist. That tells us something about Swamidass’ sense of priority.
At the same time, I believe Joshua is at least a decent guy, who simply let wrath & pride get the best of him. He & I will cross paths again before long & I won’t stop being a sociologist of science and scientists, which likely makes his blood boil. His Peaceful Scientism is serving an important purpose, particularly among non-mainstream evangelical Protestants in the USA, a group that many a ‘skeptic’ here deeply loathes, opposes & antagonizes.
I’ve read all of the rules at TSZ & the text from Lizzie pertaining to outing & doxxing several times. There is nothing unclear that it is a bannable offense. If you are simply saying that Joshua Swamidassshould have been banned from this site, until he apologised to TSZ moderators for his offense of doxxing, then we are clear. That he also did it on his own site is of course on his own conscience.
Alan Fox,
Well, perhaps it’s rather unreasonable to forgive someone who has aimed to hurt you. However, it is nevertheless right to seek repentance for our mistakes. If Joshua would address me like a man & admit what he did, I am here to listen to him.
He obviously has excessive anger for anonymity (just like Dennis Venema, Ted Davis & a number of the ‘origins’ discussants, particularly the Protestant evangelicals who are quite busy fighting with their own YECist shadows) based on a position of privilege, such that he can’t understand why someone would do things differently from him. Again, the notion of ‘Adam’s genealogy’ is much older than Swamidass’ portrayal of it so far, which is likely why he didn’t return to TSZ to discuss the thread I posted about it here, though he fawns praise upon TSZ & the atheists here. We’ll see what his upcoming book admits about his own originality and how much he acknowledges the mistakes of his fellow non-mainstream evangelical Protestants. My guess is he’ll paint them as being much more orthodox than they actually are and anger as many people as he calms in the process of promoting ‘methodological naturalism’ & peaceful scientism.
Hunh, I don’t recall you ever apologizing to KN or me.
Yes, Gregory, doxxing (like porn and malware) are offenses that may lead to banning (note the modal), the rationale being that we wish to protect the site from those behaviors, and someone who breaks the one of these rules and refuses to make an undertaking not to do so again may find themselves banned.
This is what happened with Joe G: he was NOT banned for posting a NSFW link, but rather for his refusal to make any undertaking re future behavior.
You are entitled to your position, but I find it deeply ironic. I find your attitude to forgiveness somewhat unchristian, too.
walto,
Maybe that’s because I’ve never doxxed or outed you?
I’m not a fan of philosophistry promoted by atheists/agnostics.
Oh, I get it–only one sort of offense calls for apologies. I was unaware of that. I’d apologize for that mistake, but I see it’s not necessary, you stupid dipshit.
ETA: I meant to say, ‘stupid, arrogant, badly-educated, sloppy-writing, fallacy-mongering dipshit.’ I won’t apologize for those omissions either, for the reasons so cogently explained by the nitwit Gregory above.
How about mung, was it a mistake to restore keiths while they were discussing establishing new procedures?
What do you suggest? Mung is not coming back by his own choice, the present theists moderates are not very active. You don’t want the job.
The same if you were a baby eating atheist. Have you noticed his responses to the present atheist moderators? Hard to see how he could be worse.
As a present member of the CWA ,I applaud your support of Unions.
However, mung was management , your position is more on an affirmative action complaint. That there should be x number of theists in management because the present theists in management are ineffective.
And until that problem is rectified you would never volunteer to help fix the problem. If it was rectified there would be no need to volunteer.
Kudos. No one should want to be moderator.
peace
I think this comment needs to be guanoed:
Actually it needs to be stickied at the top of the board.
DNA_Jock,
Are you going to guano Entropy’s comment? If you won’t state why, please. Because, if such comments are ok, any member can then make fun of mentally challenged people participating here. Is that cool with you?
You see Jock, this is your dilemma. If I’m actually smart, you really won’t want to admit that. But if I’m mentally disabled, then you’re approving of people making fun of the mentally disabled. Either way, you’re stuck approving of your buddy Entropy’s behavior or having to guano his comment for bad form.
Why don’t you show some moderation now, or are you going to shirk your responsibilities?
Are you admitting to being mentally challenged?
Not like the good old days when you ran your own board and used to change people’s posts and add your own words without attribution, eh Sal?
walto,
So the supposed ‘offense’ I’m being asked to apologize for is calling out the ongoing philosophistry of two atheist/agnostics here at TSZ, in a hive of ‘skeptics’ with very few Abrahamic monotheists?
Doxxing & outing are widely agreed as wrong & malicious behaviour on the internet & a dangerous display of bad social ethics. They were included as bannable offenses by Lizzie for that reason.
Retired Dr. Jon Garvey seems to think I outed one of his friends & collaborators here at TSZ (no one so far has agreed with him), whose counsel was part of the ‘deliberation’ Joshua used to ban me from PS. No doubt what played a major role was pointing out that Joshua’s stubborn ‘methodological naturalism’ is actually an ideology (cf. Paul de Vries) and not equivalent to simply ‘doing good science’ as he loosely frames it.
I will gladly apologize for the few, perhaps several times I’ve been excessive or overly aggressive in my criticism of individuals here over the years. Sometimes my words should have waited longer for prayers or counsel to weigh them. My expressions here have been more tempered lately & I won’t be drawn into such excesses nowadays. Nevertheless, I won’t stop rejecting and speaking out against philosophistry for exactly what it is & how I believe it poisons peoples’ minds & more importantly hearts, clearly hurting more than helping humanity, though it is framed as ‘secular goodwill’ & ‘reasonableness’ & such things.
I have guano’ed this.
Thanks.
Well, since you’re mentally-challenged, then I apologize for my behaviour towards you. However, you should be careful about how you approach others Salvador. You’re insulting all the fucking time, yet you don’t want your illiteracy to be pointed out? OK, then admit to your shortcomings and be humble precisely because of them, rather than display your mentally-challenged opinions mixed up with that unwarranted arrogance of yours. Idiocy and arrogance don’t mix well. You should renounce the arrogance, since it’s the only one you can do something about.
Gregory,
Ok, thanks. I don’t care about ‘calling out’ atheists (whatever that might be) or ranting about ‘philosophistry’–I was talking about your childish insults. If you’re working on that, good. As for the rest, knock yourself out.
If I was a moderator I probably would have done lots of things differently. I’m not a moderator.
The problem as I see it was in removing the one theist moderator for attempting to do what moderators do
I’ve already suggested some private apologies and interaction with Elizabeth. That would seem to be the least anyone could do.
If I was in charge I expect I’d do a lot more
I would probably do a restart and begin to make an extra effort to moderate so that folks not in the majority would feel also comfortable posting here.
1) I would no longer tolerate gratuitous insults and course and incendiary language.
2) I would probably institute a rule that if someone is guanoed from a thread he is no longer allowed to post in that thread for a period of time.
3) I might institute a daily post limit and limit participation in threads that are especially controversial.
5) I might even institute a temporary ban on I hate God OPs so as to hopefully send a message that this site is not just another anti-theist playground.
4) I would especially limit daily participation in OPs written by folks new to TSZ so as not to overwhelm those who are interested in contributing here with hostility.
5) I would definitely post a featured OP outlining the change in what is tolerated here and inviting thoughtful theists to return.
I can think of lots of other ways to try and make this site more attractive to thoughtful participants on both sides of the fence. None of them involve recruiting another token theist to carry the bags.
The only reason that I pushed for a theist moderator in the first place is because I expected none of those sorts of things to ever happen here and that was the best we could hope for.
peace
fifthmonarchyman,
Good suggestions, imho. They won’t be heeded, tho. No rules-change suggestions ever are here. They’re just debated endlessly–as they would be in a Beckett novel.
Fair enough , however you do not seem as reluctant to pass judgement on the other moderators
Actually , I think were three theist moderators, both Johnny B and Vince still being moderators . Perhaps you should be addressing them to do the job they agreed to do.
It was the how he choose to do it , not the moderating itself that was the issue. If restoring keiths , an atheist, to author status preemptively after previously restoring J-Mac preemptively was a action that justified a temporary suspension of moderation but not posting privileges. are you saying Mung should get a pass anyway because he believes in one God?
Around here all you have to do is promise not to do it again, my bet is he would still be a moderator. Mung choose to quit, mostly.
Is mung apologizing for causing such a ruckus for no particularly good reason? Unless ,of course, a principle of his religion is that all men must have author status. In which case , he should have made that clear when applying for the job.
Ok, maybe he can get permission to restore keiths
Unless Mung fucked up, since you are not a moderator I guess you cannot have an opinion.
You supposed to be representing Elizabeth.
How about any mention of God, just to be safe?
None are willing to volunteer, and with the amount of work required by your vision , I doubt one will. You think Elizabeth would support this plan?
Thanks for the detailed answer
From a practical view , the easiest way to do that is every comment and OP has to be screened an atheist and theist before it posts. Either one has veto power.
peace
We’re in Limbo. Everyone has their own idea on what is broken. There is less consensus on what needs fixing and how it could be done. Folks mostly vote with their feet. Everyone has the opportunity to be radical – put their money where their mouth is – try something – elsewhere. Or carry on as we are till Godot returns.
PS
It costs from around 50€ a year to rent server space (though Jerry Coyne and Larry Moran have managed just using free services provided by WordPress and Google, respectively) though 200€ would be needed for a site with heavy traffic or more demanding software (discourse is heavy on resources). A domain name registration is often included free first year in a package. I’d be game to support a venture financially.
What we need is ideas that would encourage participation. I suggested some stuff a while ago and the response was not exactly overwhelming.
A raison d’être, an initial idea? Is the TSZ ethic of encouraging communication among people with widely differing views still a good idea? Are there better ideas out there?
Alan Fox,
Remember when you quit?
Alan has clearly gone off the deep end once again. Now we can’t even discuss others posts.:
Why in the world would you think I am discussing moderation by commenting on others posts, and saying I disagree?
Apparently, all the posts I quoted were not rule breaking, so why can’t I comment on them? You are fucking drunk, King Alan (the King who once quit, but returned to avenge his enemies).
phoodoo,
Nope, remind me. I remember taking a break from moderating, not as admin, last summer.
phoodoo,
I agree the first quote “Salvador is an absolutely incompetent idiot.” is rule-breaking and that comment has been moved to guano.
ETA I see you’ve quoted the same phrase twice. If it is repeated in another comment then that is also rule-breaking. Can you supply a link?
phoodoo,
As to the others, I disagree. Shall we take them individually? You tell me what rule you think is being broken and we can take it from there.
I think you will find that up until very recently I was mostly silent about moderation. You can see how that worked out.
Even now you don’t see me complaining about particular moderation decisions. Instead I’m complaining about the decision to remove a moderator in order to keep him from moderating.
Those folks are rare visitors. I would venture it’s because of the generally hostile environment. If you make it more conducive to thoughtful discussion I expect they would participate more. Then we could talk about how they choose to moderate.
This is what I’m talking about. The only active theist moderator attempts to moderate and it’s called “causing a a ruckus”. Why can’t you see why that is a big frigging deal?
I would have no problem with that as a temporary measure to decrease tensions. As long as it was applied equally to both sides and also included indirect references and direct or indirect claims that God was not nessary.
peace
That does not surprise me and it is exactly why diversity is necessary here.
peace
You mean he did it with out permission from the majority.
Why can you not see why demanding that from a minority moderator is tantamount to making him your servant?
peace
I think Elizabeth doesn’t much care about the details of what goes on here but would be happy if there were more thoughtful discussion.
peace
I didn’t say any rule was broken! So if no rule was broken, why did you remove all of my replies to those posts. I am allowed to refer to other posters posts. You are breaking the rules again Alan.
If a poster is allowed to post something, I am allowed to comment that I don’t agree with them! You are totally abusing the rules Alan.
You want more people to comment here-then quit. No one will complain, I assure you.
phoodoo,
It would show much more respect for your own beliefs if you asked Salvador to stop being such an imbecile for Jesus. Remember, he presents his incompetent bullshit to defend your very beliefs. Do you really not see the problem with that? Do you really find that acceptable?
I’d like some evidence for that: it sound completely made up to me. Anyhow, I don’t believe it for a second. I think it’s because they realized it wasn’t fun: it was unpleasant work. Shit that, you know, only atheists should have to do.
Trolling and yacking and complaining is, you know, fun fit for theists.
Just look at most any thread and you can get some idea of the environment.
Pay attention to how other theists react and you get an idea of how theists generally feel about the environment here.
look at the quality of those theists who still hang around and you get an idea of how thoughtful theists with more productive things to do generally react when presented with such an environment
2 plus 2 plus 2 is generally six.
If you think I’m having fun right now then you are mistaken
peace
Entropy,
Well, you don’t really have the reading comprehension necessary to understand Sal’s posts, so of course you will just write vacuous nonsense that Alan loves.
Its great cover for when you side is losing, just throw smoke grenade, and then run under Alan’s skirt.
Welcome to TSZ.
Putting aside the accuracy of this statement.
Can the non-theists here even see why this is the impression others often have?
peace
How would you stop it, given that Elizabeth does not like banning people?
The software does not support that, other than by putting everyone into moderation and allowing the moderators to personally enforce.
Again, the software does not support that.
I dislike those OPs. I would guess that my dislike for them is as intense as yours. But if I were to ban those, then fairness would require me to block the badly thought-out anti-evolution OPs by you-know-who or by you-know-who-else.
Again, there is no software support for this.
Please go ahead and post that as a hypothetical. It might make for a good discussion of possible rules changes. Or it might just become an alternative rant thread. But you never know until you try.
While I am not certain, it is my impression that Jerry Coyne is actually paying a fee for his blog. With wordpress, that gives access to additional themes and features.
Yes, I can.
I also found very revealing the claim that none of the theists trust the non-theist moderators, yet all of the non-theists trust the theist moderator.
Putting aside the accuracy of this claim, it was offered up as proof that there is something wrong with the non-theist moderators. I suggest you think through the logic there.
This post-action de-brief has been VERY informative.
With the essential caveat that we have self-selecting samples here, I am incredibly impressed at the utter lack of self-awareness displayed by a number of our resident theists here.
The “War on Christmas” analogy is apt.
IMO the conflict, such as it is, is between people who prefer evidence-based argument and those who prefer assertion-based argument. Notice where the theology-based lines produce errors: the particular hatred that IDists have for a well-educated Christian proponent of theistic evolution. Worse than an atheist! Traitor! “House” theist!
It worked out better than the ill-informed rants by some other members.
But I see you have now joined the ranks of ill-informed ranters. And that has not helped at all.
fifthmonarchyman,
That’s only evidence in monarchyman world. Sorry. You often do take your hunches for evidence, but they’re not.
Neil Rickert,
He won’t. It’s work, and he prefers telling us about his revelations.
DNA_Jock,
Exactly right. There seems not the slightest understanding even of what evidence IS.
Not without determining the accuracy of the facts the impression is based on.
peace
Everything should be applied equally, so that should include direct and indirect claims God is necessary, correct? It would be interesting to discuss ID under those ground rules.
Interesting, I wonder how you would argue that truth was not necessary? What about logic?
peace
No , causing a ruckus is an action restoring keiths and J-Mac preemptively. And by the way, all acts of moderation are criticized and scrutinized.
Yes ,I understand. You see mung as a symbol, you put aside whether his actions were reckless and troublesome and just focus on the parts you are interested in, the sole active theist moderator under the foot of the man.
I get it.