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.
I have nothing against non-theist moderators and would not claim that there is anything wrong with them except the obvious lack of God in their lives. I would claim that there is something major wrong with removing a minority moderator because he dared to moderate
It’s your blaring bias that assumes what you have is evidence while all your opponents have is assertion.
Both sides have evidence you just think that the other sides is weak or invalid. They think the same about yours.
The problem is that you have so bought into your tribe that you don’t even realize that it is a tribe. That is frankly scary
You are projecting.
It’s the powers that be that separated house servants from field servants and treated each differently.
From the perspective of the field, house servant is not a bad gig if you can get it.
peace
Is that evidence or assertion 😉
peace
See ,you can’t do it. You are carving out special privilege for theism. One cannot claim that God is unnecessary but one can claim He is.
I just wanted to thank the admin team for their work and hosting my discussions as it’s been an opportunity for editorial review of ideas for essays and articles that I’ve published in a variety of public an private venues.
Thank you Alan, Neil, DNA_jock.
May TSZ continue and prosper.
Guano followed by a time out. peer pressure also helps
I don’t generally like banning people either.
desperate times and all that
Is that a bad thing?
how about opening comments to a particular number or time and then shutting them off when it comes to new contributors? You don’t need software for that
I don’t think you understand, I’m very close calling it and moving on like everyone else.
I certainly don’t want to be involved in another crap throwing contest here
peace
You can claim that God is unnecessary all you want I will just respond and show you how foolish you are being.
Remember it was you who wanted to ban mentioning God I just want to get rid of the stupid OPs
peace
Preemptive of what??? Preemptive of the majority telling you exactly what you can and can’t do of course?
fifthmonarchyman,
FMM may be interested in the title of an OP showing in our list of draft OPs
The perennial presuppositionalist pratfalls of fifthmonarchyman
which would require admin approval as things stand. I doubt it would pass the “no personal attacks” rule but if permissions were different that OP could have seen the light of day. I agree with Neil that antitheist posts are as big a bore as prro-theist posts. If there’s consensus to eliminate both I’d be agreeable..
This is not an accurate representation of the facts.
“As long as it was applied equally to both sides and also included indirect references and direct or indirect claims that God was not necessary”
If no one could claim the contrary position why would you need to defend a god is necessary?
Just the kind of OP that you find distasteful, maybe best to leave the subject alone if only one side would be restricted from expressing their views.
peace
LOL. You always say that after having your arguments completely obliterated by them.
Holy crap! Why would you rather show that you’re as ignorant and stupid as Salvador? Had you the slightest understanding you’d see that I’ve been trying to get Salvador to understand some very basic biological phenomena. So here some advice: when you don’t get it, either ask for clarifications after making some effort, or don’t say anything. Why do you think that writing without knowing what you’re talking about helps your case? Is it necessary to be that idiotic to believe that Jesus saves?
Incredible. You have no fucking clue, and you think that bravado compensates for such cluelessness. Then you’re surprised that I have no respect for you or Salvador. To critique you have to understand first phoodoo. Otherwise you’re just ridiculing yourself.
Where clueless creationists think that moderation should be there to protect their deepest idiocy from being exposed.
Preemptive of discussing a known controversial decision you want to make. What if the majority have the a compelling argument you are unaware of? If there is a disagreement,whose view should prevail ?
Is this sort of name-calling acceptable here?
Yes, it is acceptable.
It is also discouraged, as are all forms of trolling.
The more astute will notice how effective this discouragement is. For instance, there is nothing stopping someone from posting a mind-numbingly stupid OP, whose thesis has been refuted repeatedly at TSZ and then tone-trolling the commenters who point out the OP’s stupidity.
A apropos of nothing.
Alrighty.
1) I don’t think that atheists here can go very long with out claiming that God is not necessary.
2) If they don’t claim directly or indirectly that God is not necessarily then I don’t need to point out their error. I have lots of interactions with people where the subject never comes up. Just not too often on an anti-theist site like this.
Peace
Then the decision can be reversed.
The moderator. If a moderator makes a decision that you don’t approve of you let him know why you disprove and then calk it up to personal preference or what ever.
You all act like you have never worked with people different than you. You can’t always get what you want
peace
Like I said I’m fine with that as a temporary measure to stop the bleeding and demonstrate good will. I’m not obsessed with the subject.
As it is the site is in crisis and something has to be done. Theists feel this is just another mindless New atheist meeting place. You need to change that perception or the quality of discussion will continue to flounder here.
peace
I am not seeing any evidence of a crisis. There’s a temporary surge in whining about moderation. But this isn’t the first time that has happened.
I’m not aware of too many pro-theist posts here. There are a few anti-evolution posts. I’ll grant some of these are very poorly reasoned. An anti-evolution post is not a pro-theist post.
I can’t think of the last OP that could be considered prosthelytizing, can you?
peace
OK, if that is how you feel I guess even more theists need to leave to convince you.
I can take a hint
peace
If you don’t want to be called an ass-hole then read very carefully before bloviating Salvador. In other words, don’t be an ass-hole and you won’t be called that.
God only equals truth and or logic in FMM wack world (“where lunacy reigns–and it’s free!!”)😵
Truth is a concept, not some object or person. Truth is a concept we use in order to try and make sense of some kind of propositions. You have to be careful what you equate your imaginary friend with. Are you saying that “God” is a concept we use to try and make sense of propositions? Well, given that, I’d say that it’s not a necessary one, that unlike truth, its use is limited to god-of-the-gaps propositions, and that I have no use for it.
Propositional logic? Boolean logic? Fuzzy logic? Some other logic? The most frequent one, propositional logic, is a conceptual framework used by us to try and evaluate the truth-value of specific kinds of propositions. Is it necessary? Well, for us, if we want to make sense, and if we’re discussing true/false propositions. For other kinds of problems we’d use different kinds of logic. Is your god a conceptual framework for evaluating some specific kinds of propositions too? Why use that useless and misleading word, “God,” when we can simply refer to the appropriate logic and be thus a tad more explicit and clear?
ETA: And now let’s watch fmm mistaking concepts for referents, and making a mess. Sorry fmm, I’m not interested in going through the rabbit hole with you. If you want to try and understand what I wrote for your edification, good and you’re welcome. If you prefer to twist, ignore, equivocate, and thus play the presuppositional bullshit, then poor characterless you, and my words are thus wasted. Either way you’re on your own.
Alan:
That title does not violate the rules, as I’ve already pointed out:
People have been explaining this to Alan for years. He just can’t grasp it.
The irony is exquisite, fifth is mad mung got chastised for restoring you to author status when he would moderate your posts like the atheists wanted to.
newton,
Where’s the irony? There’s an obvious distinction between
a) fifth describing the rules he’d implement if he were in charge, instead of Lizzie; and
b) fifth complaining (correctly) that the remaining moderators abused their privileges in removing Mung.
Alan’s incomprehension of the rules reminds me of another episode.
Rumraket had posted a funny image which included the caption
Alan guanoed it, writing:
Walto and I had to explain to Alan why it wasn’t rule-violating:
keiths:
walto:
Still confused, Alan responded:
walto:
Alan:
Did Alan fix his mistake? Of course not.
And after years as a moderator, he still can’t grasp the meaning of that simple rule.
“Erisology is the study of disagreement, specifically the study of unsuccessful disagreement. An unsuccessful disagreement is an exchange where people are no closer in understanding at the end than they were at the beginning, meaning the exchange has been mostly about talking past each other and/or hurling insults. A really unsuccessful one is where people actually push each other apart, and this seems disturbingly common.”
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/04/erisology-the-science-of-arguing-about-everything/586534/
That post of rum’s nicely demonstrates the defects in the current rules. It’s the sort of thing that probably SHOULD be “disappeared” from a civil site. And my guess is that Lizzie would approve of its disappearance. But, not only is it quite difficult (if not impossible) to get rules of civility just right, the current rules here aren’t even close. That’s the main reason phoodoo is able to have such a fun time on this forum (and is often correct in his criticisms–Jock’s industrious logic-chopping notwithstanding). The Bible is no good.
BruceS,
Interesting article. That opening sentence has a familiar ring to it.
Not exactly, fifth correct me, it abused the moderator’s privilege, not by suspending a moderator, but by suspending the sole theist moderator. Who was suspended for for taking you off of premoderation which is exactly where he believes your OP belongs and that privilege is within existing Lizzie’s rules.
And that is ironical ,as they say hereabouts.
newton,
Again, where’s the irony?
Do you really think that fifth’s attitude is “I protest Mung’s removal as moderator, but if he ever stands up for a critic of mine, then screw him. Go ahead and remove him”?
By the way, Mung was removed, not merely suspended. Alan, belatedly trying to reverse (some of) the damage he’d caused, offered to reinstate Mung as moderator. Jock and Neil vetoed it.
walto,
Lizzie herself has stated that she never intended for TSZ to be a particularly polite site.
In any case, as you and I both explained to Alan, Rumraket’s post didn’t violate the rules and should not have been guanoed.
walto,
Again, that wasn’t Lizzie’s intention. Plus, we already have a trio of corrupt and abusive moderators. Giving them more power, especially in an area as subjective as the proper level of civility, would be a mistake.
newton,
That sentence doesn’t make a lot of sense. Could you rephrase?
BTW, I’d like to see keiths’ OP. Just redact the title or something.
Have you spoken to her about this?
walto,
There is no OP yet. Just a title. Which gives an indication of just how desperate Alan is.
He went snooping around my draft OPs, hoping to find an excuse for refusing to restore my Author status. He couldn’t find one, so he latched onto the title of an unwritten OP as if it were rule-violating:
There was no rule violation, of course. The “presuppositional pratfalls” I was referring to were fifth’s stated views, and views are fair game for criticism at TSZ. As we all know.
walto,
No. She stated it at TSZ. That’s why I wrote
Oh my god, it might have seen the light of day! This sounds frightening!
Just the thought of Alan having to clutch his pearls like that…well, I hate to even think of it.
I imagine Alan And Jock are right at this moment convened in a secure location, having emergency talks about UK libel laws and when they can ignore them when its someone they don’t like. Richard Hughes is probably there serving wet biscuits.
phoodoo,
Heh. Alan, the drama queen.
More later on why he needs to manufacture drama over this.
The last sentence of Alan’s comment was also revealing:
But of course, Lizzie wanted us to discuss controversial topics here, including religion. Note that religion is the very first topic she mentions:
Alan is completely out of step with Lizzie, and he’s trying to undermine her vision for TSZ while piously proclaiming
It reminds me of this exchange:
keiths:
Alan:
keiths:
I see keiths and phoodoo are both honing their creative writing skills.
phoodoo,
Just a fly by to say “fuck off you imbecile”. Thanks.
Remind me of her statement?
In the eye of the beholder.
Yes, because he was rather sole theist moderator.
That would not be ironic. What would be ironic is the very action which resulted in mung’s suspension of moderation privileges would result, as evidenced by your potential OP would result in a site which he considers less inviting for theists.
The atheist mods’ action in removing a particular theist moderator more closely aligned with his vision of Lizzie’s vision than the theist mod.
Since his ideal site would require far more moderation activity, it is not unreasonable that a moderator which actively undermined that vision would be subject to repercussions as long as he was not the sole theist moderator.
Why do you think mung restored your author status when he did, what motivated it at that particular time, on the heels of what Mung has expressed as disappointing results with J-Mac?