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.
newton,
FWIW, I understood the irony.
Fifth protested the illicit removal of a moderator. That moderator would have allowed a non-rule-violating OP to see the light of day.
Oh, the irony? Not.
newton,
Your logic needs some work. From the fact that fifth protested the illicit removal of the lone theist moderator, it does not follow that he’d be fine with the illicit removal of non-theist moderators.
walto:
She wrote:
Not that anyone cares, but for what it’s worth, I think all of the following are true.
1. The majority of TSZ participants are not biased against theists per se.
2. If the majority of TSZ participants were biased against theists per se, that would be bad.
3. The majority of TSZ participants are biased against people who aren’t very intelligent and aren’t able to learn but who think that they are in a superior epistemic position.
4. It is a good thing that (3) is the case.
5. The majority of theists are TSZ these days are people who aren’t very intelligent and aren’t able to learn but who think that they are in a superior epistemic position.
6. It is unfortunate that (5) is the case.
What TSZ needs isn’t more evenly balanced moderation between theists and non-theists; it needs more intelligent and better educated theists.
Kantian Naturalist,
For arguments sake I will grant you this assertion. What do you think it would take to attract more intelligent and better educated theists?
I think keths suffers from irony deficiency.
KN,
What TSZ needs is better moderators (or none at all). The ones we’ve got create crisis after crisis. Their handling of the Mung situation could hardly have been worse, and that’s just their latest fuckup.
I don’t think it’s possible — they’re too busy actually doing stuff that matters to waste any of their time on the Internet. Besides, what would we do? Recruit? Advertise? Go on social media for TSZ?
I do think we need moderators of some kind. The absence of moderators makes rampant abuse almost guaranteed, and every single thread is a flame war. I do think that the whole situation with Mung could have been handled much better, since he had no reason to believe that what he did was inappropriate, and he had no opportunity to give an account of his actions.
This is a philosophy professor here folks.
I think I can be a philosophy professor, doesn’t look that hard. I am going to try.
1. Some people are smart. Some people are dumby.
2. Everyone who is dumby is less smart than me.
3. I don’t like dumby people.
4. You people are dumby.
5. I am smart.
6. I don’t like you people.
7.Ha!
How much does that job pay KN?
Philosophy professors have time.
He may have not considered it inappropriate but he had every reason in the world to expect the blowback.If true, then the time to have a discussion is before the action then after. There was no rush.
Yep if only we could attract more theists like phoodoo, life would be swell.
He was disinterested in the cause of the removal, only that it removed theist. The longer the boss stays uninvolved the more legal it appears. Much like your ruckus.
Not per fifth’s plan, the atheist moderators were more aligned with fifth’s plan than the theist.
Awesome logic
Looks like we may never know about fifth, but until Lizzie says something different, that the majority of moderators can remove the privilege of moderation stands as a precedent.
KN,
Actually, the evidence suggests otherwise. Either way, we can’t afford to have moderators as dishonest and abusive as Alan, Neil, and DNA_Jock.
Right. How could he, with Alan throwing a childish tantrum and removing Mung eight minutes after the supposed infraction? Then Neil and Jock just made things worse by refusing to reinstate Mung after Alan had finally, after days, come to his senses.
newton:
Debate is definitely not your thing, newton.
We’ve already been over your goofy “silence equals approval” logic. Go ahead and tell us how johnnyB and Vincent are in complete support of Mung’s removal, since they haven’t said anything about it.
Another example: Alan’s been lying in this thread. Shall we take your word for it that Lizzie wants her moderators to lie to the readers, since she hasn’t shown up to admonish him? Get real.
Also, Alan has something to say about your “precedent” idea:
Heh.
Like I said, debate is definitely not your thing, newton. (Though you are good at toadying to the moderators.)
ETA: And of course Alan has contradicted himself on that point since then. He needs to heed his own maxim about liars needing to remember their lines.
Oh my fucking aunt! Toadying? Maybe you should try a new creative writing course.
Alan can’t refute my comments, so he yammers on about “creative writing” instead. It must be really frustrating for him.
Alan,
Print out this comment of yours and tape it to your monitor. Right under the one that says “Liars need to remember their lines”:
I guess not ,I actually read what you write and respond to that while you just regurgitate the same litany of grievances. Go on , one more time.
Aware of that, yes. Here’s the logic again.
1 Lizzie has the ability to replace any moderator she pleases at any time
2 She has supported the moderators in the past to use their best judgement in her absence , most recently in your ruckus. In which she left the moderator’s decision intact.
3 She has not replaced or sanctioned any moderator , nor has she taken two minutes to comment publicly her approval or disapproval .
4 She is aware of the issue as she wishes to be.
5 She is aware ,in that case of no action by her, the new precedent resulting from the majority of moderators’ actions will remain in place.
6 The longer she takes no action, the longer the precedent is in place and becomes the new normal.
Those are the facts.
I have no idea what the other theist moderators feel, but one can say they don’t disapprove enough to take two minutes to offer an opinion or demand a revote.
Like ex-moderator Patrick did.
I hope a better one
1. Pm Lizzie and make her aware of this lying. This would be step 4 above. If she trusts your opinion ,she can replace Alan. If she doesn’t care , she will do nothing. If she doesn’t lend much credence to you charges, she probably do nothing as well.
I agree in the case of no action it will be hard to know which was the cause. Just kidding.
Moderators ,as evidenced by your suspension , have had the ability to suspend certain privileges, which in their best judgement is for the good of the site. The privilege of being a moderator had never been tested, in that case it was decided it took a majority. Was the suspension of moderator privilege by a majority being discussed when he referred to “changes”?
Lizzie is free to overturn the decision anytime she chooses, see steps in previous post, so far she has chosen non-intervention by the owner.
See that is the thing, there is no advantage to currying favor with the moderators, I have no agenda or vendetta to pursue.
But if in some way ,I irritate you enough for you to start flinging poo, by just restating the facts, that is reward enough.
“Particularly polite” Hmm.
Is calling someone a fucktard particularly impolite or just impolite?
walto:
I’m not sure it matters. First, Rumraket didn’t label Erik a “fucktard” in his comment, which was just a funny image advising Erik to
Second, Lizzie isn’t establishing a rule in that quote:
So whether “fucktard” is impolite is irrelevant to any moderation decisions. And as you and I explained to Alan, Rumraket’s image doesn’t fall afoul of the “address the post” rule.
As for whether “fucktard” is rule-violating (versus merely impolite), I would say yes, it’s rule-violating. But moving it from one thread to another is a waste of time.
Interestingly, DNA_Jock thinks it’s acceptable for Entropy to call Sal an “ass-hole”, while Alan has guanoed comments for merely containing the word “doofus”.
One of the nice things about my “choose your own moderators” scheme is that it would allow readers to tailor their experience to their own preferences. Folks like me would choose no moderators at all. At the other extreme, pearl-clutchers could choose someone like Alan, who once tried to stop the posting of comments he considered too obscene — in Noyau, of all places. In-betweeners could choose any member(s) whose tolerance levels matched their own.
Most importantly, members could replace the current dishonest and abusive moderators with others of their choosing. A huge defect of the current system is that it forces these guys on us, making us all the victims of Lizzie’s poor (or nonexistent) vetting process.
keiths, commenting on newton’s inane “silence equals approval” argument:
newton:
It never occurred to you that they, having been completely inactive as moderators, might not have felt entitled to weigh in? Or has your super-duper silence analysis ruled out that possibility?
Why? By your logic, her silence already indicates that she approves of it. After all, Alan has been lying for years (a recent example being his false accusation of misogyny over at AtBC — an accusation he has also made here), and he has even admitted to having a lying problem. Lizzie isn’t admonishing him; therefore she approves of his lying.
Who would have guessed? But thanks to newton’s patented silence analysis techniques, we can rest assured that Lizzie approves of moderators lying, approves when they censor people (All that Barry Arrington stuff? She’s had a change of heart. Just listen to her silence.), and approves when they stage a coup and oust a fellow moderator.
You can keep peddling this stuff, newton, but who do you think will be dumb enough to buy it?
newton,
Ha ha. Sure, they have the ability — that is, the software allows them to do it — but they aren’t entitled to do so.
Remember, Neil is the doofus who requested a rule allowing the moderators to suspend people after Alan had already suspended me and after Jock and Neil had rubber-stamped it. I described it earlier in the thread:
So between Neil asking Lizzie for a rule change, and Alan writing this…
…you’re really out of luck, newton. They wouldn’t have been entitled to suspend me even if I had actually broken the rules.
Read it again, noting the words I’ve bolded:
Lizzie made the final decisions on all personnel decisions prior to the coup. I suppose you’ll try telling us that ousting a fellow moderator without the blog owner’s approval doesn’t constitute “a significant change”.
This is factually incorrect. We (all active admins, including Mung) were in the middle of discussing admin policy regarding Mung’s decision to give J-Mac unrestricted publishing permission when he did it again with Keith’s.
Then I contacted Lizzie for input which never came and Mung decided not to continue with discussion that might have resolved things and instead decided he no longer wished to be an admin.
That still applies.
So the reason that keiths has not made any effort to contact Lizzie is because he actually agrees with the “Silence implies consent” logic.
That’s good to know, although I am somewhat surprised to see him admit it.
(Alternatively, keiths is being sarcastic, and is in fact magnanimously declining this wonderful opportunity to prove newton, DNA_Jock and Alan Fox wrong. Yeah, right, that’s it.)
Either way, he appears to have lost the plot entirely.
So, Jock– What does “approves” mean?
Likes?
Favors?
Thinks it’s better than nothing?
Doesn’t care one way or another?
Can live with?
Maybe would answer in some positive way if still alive?
And yet ,when Lizzie last appeared here she left the suspension in place, did not replace the moderators, and voiced full throated support of the moderators.
Any explanation how your conclusion follows from those facts?
Is that during the period where she did nothing to reverse your suspension? Even though she was semi-active on the site. Your position is she allowed a travesty of justice which went against her vision of the site by the moderator to remain in place?
Sounds like Neil wished to codify the practice already in place under the general rule she expects moderators to use their best judgment to deal with unexpected contingencies in her absence. Sounds like you were a contingency, though not that unexpected.
Could you supply the context this was made?
…
I disagree, they are entitled to use their best judgement per Lizzie. Her leaving you suspended when she briefly returned put her seal of approval on the action.
I would say to them ,Mung fell under the “ unexpected contigency” when he restored you to authorship preemptively. An unnecessarily boneheaded move.
I would tell them that J-Mac had already crossed the line when restored, why on Earth did Mung think restoring you would turn out anyway other than the way it did? You are self-righteous hot head, which makes you not very trustworthy.
I would tell them, that if history is any judge , Mung would still be moderator if he had waited to restore you until any clarification from J-MAC’s restoration was hashed out. Mung is not stupid.
He chose otherwise then quit, Mung made the significant change for himself.
You need to come up some new material. This is boring.
I think “approves” carries a positive connotation, whereas “consent” only denotes a minimal acceptance/compliance. You evidently think otherwise.
I reckon
Likes? = Approves
Favors? = Approves
Thinks it’s better than nothing? = Consents
Doesn’t care one way or another? = Consents
Can live with? = Consents
Maybe would answer in some positive way if still alive? = too vague to say…
I hold that “He who remains silent is seen to consent, if they should and can speak.”
It was keiths who came up with the deranged idea that Thomas More approved of the Act of Supremacy.
DNA_Jock,
Thanks for that response. I think it’s heterodoxical, though. Consent is generally considered to require some positive action–except when it’s explicitly deemed “tacit.” Thus, perhaps the main complaint against the classical social contract theorists has been the historical falsity of the supposition that the citizens have actually consented to the contracts. Certainly it’s nothing like what we do when we consent to a price.
walto,
If you ask an aardvaark if they like The Three Stooges, and they don’t reply, apparently to Jock this means they don’t dislike it. Or it even might mean they do like it.
You are equating the awareness and intelligence of the owner of this blog to the awareness and intelligence of an aardvark? That is only way your analogy makes sense.
Nicely done
Idiot.
walto,
Ah, I see where you are coming from. You are taking a social/political view of consent. I am (perhaps self-servingly) taking a legal view. Hence the Man for All Seasons references…
newton,
😛
In this case , by allowing a moderator to use their best judgement to resolve unforeseen issues isn’t her consent implied for the the results of that best judgement until she overrules the moderator, based on the assumption she is as aware of the situation as she choses?
I don’t know, but the “allowing” begs the question, as does the awareness assumption.
Actually Lizzie agrees with me.
Because she hasn’t replied here.
She certainly has consented to allow you to insult her.
However , you neglect a vital component, she has to be aware of the action. I suggest you pm her to be sure she is aware.
newton,
She is every bit as aware as an aardvark.
Has he…or have you? You’re the one who says she’s “certainly consented.” Have you confirmed she’s not lying in a coma somewhere?
walto,
Obviously, which is why it’s so funny to watch Jock and newton pretending otherwise.
Jock:
Ha ha. Perhaps self-servingly?
It’s a transparent attempt to manufacture consent where none is in evidence.
She’s active (posting comments) elsewhere on the internet.
newton:
Heh. When Lizzie last appeared here the suspension had already been lifted and she hadn’t even read the Squawk Box comments. (And still hasn’t, for all we know.)
As for the “full-throated support”, is that the conclusion of one of your patented silence analyses? ‘Cause there isn’t any “full-throated support” in what she actually wrote:
Reread that last paragraph, newton. That ain’t “silence equals approval”.
In Lizzie’s thread, phoodoo asked Neil:
Alan replied:
And:
It was obvious to Alan, as it likely is to most of us, that personnel decisions are Lizzie’s to make, not Alan’s (or Neil’s, or Jock’s). She is the blog owner, and personnel decisions, especially in the case of ousting a moderator, are serious business.
So why did Alan reverse the long-established precedent? Was there an emergency? Not in the slightest. Alan was just throwing a tantrum, eight minutes after Mung’s action. He went off half-cocked and dragged TSZ into yet another moderation brouhaha.
(As a further indication of how petty Alan is, he demoted Mung not to Author or New Author, but to Contributor.)
How hard would it have been to ask Mung for an explanation before acting? How hard would it have been to wait for Lizzie’s input before taking the drastic step of removing Mung’s moderator privileges?
For an emotionally mature adult, these would have been obvious steps to take. For Alan, who is a childish hothead, such restraint appears to be out of reach.
Alan,
You failed to close comments on Sandbox(3) when you started Sandbox(4), so quarrion’s latest comment ended up in the wrong place.
She set up the site and allowed a range of comments which include personal insults such as Phoodoo’s to be published on certain threads. Since “ consented” is past tense, I think “ certainly consented “ is an accurate description of what she did in the past.
She may no longer consent or not be capable of consent if she is in a coma. I do not know.