Moderation Issues (6)

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.

1,441 thoughts on “Moderation Issues (6)

  1. Alan Fox:

    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.

    Thanks for the correction.

    Was it previously an established admin policy that giving unrestricted publishing permission to someone required consensus among administrators? Was Mung aware of that policy and did he agree to it when he accepted admin duties?

    It’s surely no secret that I think J-Mac makes TSZ worse off with every comment and post that he makes. But our hands are tied because of the absent landlord problem. Our rules don’t permit us to restrict J-Mac’s (or anyone else’s) contributions here no matter how much it would be in our collective self-interest to do so.

    At the same time the rules cannot be revised without either Lizzie’s imprimatur (which isn’t going to come), buying the site from her (which no one is willing to do, because it’s not valuable enough to us for that to be worth our time and money), or starting a new site (which is also time and money that no one here is willing to invest).

    And since (in theory) the function of the moderators is to enforce the rules it would be an abuse of their power for them to decide what the rules are, even if the changes were in the long-term interest of TSZ. If the rules are changed it should be through consensus-building and discussion. (I’m anti-authoritarian because I believe in the power of conversation and cooperation to build community.)

    In short, we’re screwed and there’s nothing we’re willing to do about it.

  2. phoodoo:
    Your mindless dribbling about how all the theists here are so dumb and you are so smart make TSZ a worse place.

    Your failure to understand what’s going on in the discussions come only to confirm the hypothesis that you guys, at least you and Salvador, are that dumb.

  3. Kantian Naturalist: In short, we’re screwed and there’s nothing we’re willing to do about it.

    I’d like to address your comment in depth but RL curtails me from doing so till Sunday pm. Bref, depends on who “we” is.

  4. KN, to Alan:

    Thanks for the correction.

    Don’t thank him. You were already correct. Mung didn’t have an opportunity to state his case. How could he, with Alan throwing a fit and removing his moderator privileges a mere eight minutes after the supposed infraction?

    It wasn’t until days later that Alan even stated the supposed reasons for his action, and Mung was able to reply. But by then the damage had been done and the moderation kerfuffle was in full swing. (Amusingly, Alan was waiting for input from Lizzie during that time — something he knows he should have done before taking his rash and foolish action.)

    Was it previously an established admin policy that giving unrestricted publishing permission to someone required consensus among administrators? Was Mung aware of that policy and did he agree to it when he accepted admin duties?

    No and no. As Alan himself acknowledges.

    It was just a tantrum on Alan’s part. Mung didn’t do exactly what Alan wanted, so Alan flipped out and removed his moderator privileges. Neil and Jock compounded the damage by refusing to reinstate Mung even after Alan had finally calmed down and offered to do so.

    Note the repeated pattern: Someone does something Alan doesn’t like, but that is perfectly within the rules. Alan flips out, abuses his privileges, and takes illegitimate action against the person(s). Over and over. And the other moderators support the abuse.

    It’s what happened with the invasion of privacy and bogus suspension of ALurker and Patrick, based on the harebrained accusation that they were the same person — which wouldn’t have been a rule violation even if it had been true. (Alan’s behavior during that episode was so bad that no one, including Alan himself, has ever stepped forward to defend it. Not even newton, who claimed he was too busy. Heh.)

    It’s what happened with me, where Alan specifically admitted that he banned me for 30 days because I was criticizing the moderators, as if that were a rule violation. (He also admitted that my OP violated no rules, though he tried to walk that back after realizing that he’d shot himself in the foot.)

    Same thing with demoting me to Contributor status, based not on any rule violations, but on a lie that he is still telling (more on that later).

    And of course, the same thing with Mung, as explained above.

    Our rules don’t permit us to restrict J-Mac’s (or anyone else’s) contributions here no matter how much it would be in our collective self-interest to do so.

    Correct. The censorship scheme that Alan and Neil imposed on J-Mac was illicit and also directly contrary to the TSZ ethos. J-Mac had violated no rules with his OPs. It’s well known that Lizzie founded TSZ largely in protest of the censorship at UD, and so for Alan and Neil to threaten J-Mac with censorship based on the content of non-rule-violating OPs was a huge abuse. As a result of that fuckup, theists can now point to TSZ and truthfully say that one of their own was singled out for punishment despite not having violated any rules.

    At the same time the rules cannot be revised without either Lizzie’s imprimatur…

    Correct. Yet the moderators (and especially Alan) do it continually. They have no respect for Lizzie, despite their pious proclamations to the contrary.

    And since (in theory) the function of the moderators is to enforce the rules it would be an abuse of their power for them to decide what the rules are…

    Right. It was a blatant abuse for them to remove Mung, just as it was a blatant abuse for them to suspend ALurker, Patrick, and me. And hilarious that Neil inadvertently admitted the latter abuse by requesting a rule allowing the moderators to suspend people — after they had already done so three times!

  5. keiths:

    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.

    You moved quarrion’s comment to the right place, but you still haven’t closed comments on Sandbox(3).

  6. keiths,

    I was the first one who was censored by Alan, long before he did it to J-Mac.

    His excuse for censoring me? I don’t think he knows. Supposedly because I quoted another poster. Alan felt that was embarrassing him, and his pathetic moderation.

  7. Why was this comment sent to guano? Who sent it to guano?:

    DNA_Jock: I think you use words that you don’t understand, hoping that nobody will notice.

    You are an idiot.

    I think you use words that you don’t understand, hoping that nobody will notice. You’re astoundingly obtuse. What an idiot.

    If you didn’t lack such basic knowledge, then you would have to be dishonest to the point of not caring risking ridicule, as long as your intended audience, evolutionists as ignorant as yourself, could not understand the examples either. I’m not kidding at all. You need mental help.

    You are an idiot.

  8. phoodoo: Why was this comment sent to guano? Who sent it too guano?:

    @Moderators

    I think phoodoo was making a “subtle” point here. His comment was constructed entirely by copying & pasting from Entropy’s posts.

    Erik has been trying to draw attention to those posts in the pegging thread as well (see above).

  9. Corneel,

    See this is where Alan and Jock start making excuses. They will say, “Oh but Entropy’s posts had other words…” ,

    “Well, Sal deserved it, so it is Ok…” ,

    “Well, your post must have some other meaning, because we are mind readers, so that’s the reason why we moved it…”

    Then Alan will say, “If you break the rules (even if you don’t) I will have to suspend you again…”

    How many times will they warn Entropy they will suspend him?

    Zero, of course.

    That’s Alan.

  10. I sent it to guano, as it was performance art. I am well aware of it’s intent, which relates to moderation issues, so it was still on the wrong thread.
    He is correct that there’s a large swathe of that thread that is potentially guano-worthy, but has been quoted by theists trying to make a point about style of argument, rather than a point about moderation. I did not wish to guano colewd’s point as collateral damage.

    Please try to behave.

  11. phoodoo,

    The difference phoodoo, is that Salvador won those epithets hands down. Of course, because you love that imbecile, you’d rather not see him insulted, but your love is misplaced. He’s a disgrace to your own movement. You should be the one insulting him and asking him to stop being such an arrogant idiot for Jesus. You should be telling him that he better understands very well before commenting to avoid ridiculing creationist “thinking” for all the world to see.

    Stop defending Salvador, start defending your beliefs. Have some self-respect.

  12. DNA_Jock: He is correct that there’s a large swathe of that thread that is potentially guano-worthy,

    Potentially! Ha. That you did nothing about. That Alan did nothing about.

    That the insults were against a theist? Just coincidence of course.

    Is Alan going to be moving Entropy to pre-moderation do you reckon Jock?

    You are potentially a whooping hypocrite.

  13. Corneel:
    @Moderators

    I think phoodoo was making a “subtle” point here. His comment was constructed entirely by copying & pasting from Entropy’s posts.

    Erik has been trying to draw attention to those posts in the pegging thread as well (see above).

    I think that the moderators know this, and I often see my comments sent to guano (I have no patience for idiocy combined with arrogance).

    I suspect that my comments have not been moved to guano this time around because of complexities with the whole thread. From my comments having content, to being answers to queries by some creationists.

    I try and tone them down, but sometimes Salvador makes it very very hard. He cannot help the arrogant tone, despite his incredible lack of understanding.

  14. DNA_Jock: He is correct that there’s a large swathe of that thread that is potentially guano-worthy, but has been quoted by theists trying to make a point about style of argument, rather than a point about moderation.

    Yes, many posts have “colorful” language but I think there is a valid point to be made that the “mental issue/ you need counseling” post is clearly rule-breaking.

  15. Entropy: I try and tone them down, but sometimes Salvador makes it very very hard. He cannot help the arrogant tone, despite his incredible lack of understanding.

    I understand, but encourage you to tone down. You write a lot of good stuff. The insults detract from that, which is a pity.

  16. Corneel:
    I understand, but encourage you to tone down. You write a lot of good stuff. The insults detract from that, which is a pity.

    Sure. Thanks.

  17. Corneel,

    Only potentially rule breaking.

    How it could be considered only potentially rule breaking is a case of such idiocy, that only the moderators here could think they could say something so ridiculous.

    The slapstick of it all is the excuses they make. Just like I said they would.

    Jock didn’t want to have to guano Bill’s response, THAT’S why he let it go this time…

  18. Actually phoodoo, Sal’s being a theist really had nothing to do with it.
    I know you don’t believe that, and I am quite confident that there is NOTHING that I could do that would convince you otherwise.
    My moderation decisions are heavily influenced by the substantive content comments carry. I know that you don’t understand that, so I have learnt to live with your low opinion of me.
    I take solace in the level of analytical insight that you bring to these issues.

  19. Corneel,
    Agreed. Such aspersions should also be discouraged because they represent part of the emotional pay-off for inveterate trolls.
    We all fail at DNFTT, to varying degrees.

  20. DNA_Jock: My moderation decisions are heavily influenced by the substantive content comments carry.

    What rule is that?

    You are making up rules to justify your, and the trio of farcical moderators, moderation here. Lizzie never made a rule that said it is ok to insult other posters as long as you write other stuff with it. I am sure if Lizzie wanted to mean that, she could have written that.

  21. phoodoo: I am sure if Lizzie wanted to mean that, she could have written that.

    Quoting from the “Rules” page:

    13th December 2015:

    [Dr Liddle writes ] This post by DNA_Jock sums up how the implementation of the rules essentially works, and how I think it should work. If you think it doesn’t, let us know:

    DNA_Jock:

    walto: it’s arbitrary and capricious which posts get guanoed

    I think not. It is stochastic.
    Things that increase vs. decrease the probability of guanoing:
    1 Clearly breaks rules vs. may be interpreted as rule-breaking.
    2 Guanoing requested vs. Target requests post not be guanoed
    3 Author perceived to be “home” side vs. Author perceived to be “visitor”
    4 Target perceived to be “visitor” vs. Target is an admin
    5 Substantive content is low vs. Substantive content is high
    6 Derailing active discussion vs. ancient bloody history.
    As to the relative importance of the different factors, YMMV.

    Discrete-choice modeling, it’s fun.

    ____________________________________________________________
    See item 5.

  22. Alan Fox:

    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.

    Thanks for the correction.

    Was it previously an established admin policy that giving unrestricted publishing permission to someone required consensus among administrators? Was Mung aware of that policy and did he agree to it when he accepted admin duties?

    Your question prompted me to review PMs exchanged with Mung regarding admin policy on posting privileges. I see I shared all details of my dealings with keiths’s suspension and the terms of reinstatement, including a copy of the email I sent to keiths. (All shared also with Lizzie and other admins) so Mung was made aware that keiths was and is restricted from posting OPs.

    It’s surely no secret that I think J-Mac makes TSZ worse off with every comment and post that he makes. But our hands are tied because of the absent landlord problem. Our rules don’t permit us to restrict J-Mac’s (or anyone else’s) contributions here no matter how much it would be in our collective self-interest to do so.

    Not strictly true. Following arguably racist comments from a member, Lizzie clarified that members do not have carte blanche to publish anything. She has left it in the discretion of fellow admins to act in the case of “sub-standard” OPs. And, yes, her continued absence is a problem and an issue for me.

    At the same time the rules cannot be revised without either Lizzie’s imprimatur (which isn’t going to come), buying the site from her (which no one is willing to do, because it’s not valuable enough to us for that to be worth our time and money), or starting a new site (which is also time and money that no one here is willing to invest).

    Regarding setting up a new venue, it is certainly the simplest option and one I’d support. I have server space available until the end of the year, so no money is needed till November, when it comes up for renewal. But whether enough people want to join a new club and what the rules for that new club should be… Well, that might be difficult to resolve.

    And since (in theory) the function of the moderators is to enforce the rules it would be an abuse of their power for them to decide what the rules are, even if the changes were in the long-term interest of TSZ. If the rules are changed it should be through consensus-building and discussion. (I’m anti-authoritarian because I believe in the power of conversation and cooperation to build community.)

    An alternative is for us to make an assumption that Lizzie hasn’t the time and inclination to participate further and carry on with changes that seem appropriate. Rule changes, appearance changes, whatever. Again, I don’t know how such a scenario would work or for how long. I will try getting in touch with Lizzie once more.

    In short, we’re screwed and there’s nothing we’re willing to do about it.

    The problem is getting enough consensus for any action.

  23. What the heck, you guys rewrite the rules once again and say its all about the percent of content versus insults that now matters, so Ok, I am just trying to follow your ever changing rules-so why was this comment guanoed?:

    The proper question. Its an interesting point, let’s break it down to its constitute parts. First you said “the” as opposed to “a”. As if only one question could be the proper one. Is that so, what is this based on? And when you say “proper” did you mean genuine? Or perhaps you meant the decent question? The virtuous question? But what really is virtuous to a man who does not believe in absolute virtue? So its unlikely you meant that. It could be that you meant punctilious, but that seems rather unlikely, given that you clearly suffer from some levels of retardation, and reading comprehension difficulties, so you wouldn’t even know what that meant, given your putrefied brain.

    And then question. Again, its also unlikely that you even know what a question is, you syphilitic wart you.

    So, in totem, when you discuss the proper question, we have to assume that what you really wish to say is, “Entropy is an infected douche-bag, of zero intellectual capacity, a steaming pile of rancid weasel shit, dripping through a sieve of loutish, flaccid fatty skin.” And who would disagree with that?

    Enough content Jock? Alan?

    There is a lot of content there.

    Try to follow your crazy ideas and look what happens!

  24. phoodoo: What rule is that?

    You are making up rules to justify your, and the trio of farcical moderators, moderation here.Lizzie never made a rule that said it is ok to insult other posters as long as you write other stuff with it.I am sure if Lizzie wanted to mean that, she could have written that.

    August 2, 2018:

    Lizzie wrote:

    “One of my principles (the only principle ethically compatible with my absentee landlord status IMO) is that I trust the admins to come to the best decision they can, whether it is a decision I would have made or not”

    Not a rule, the only principle ethically compatible. She still has not replaced the moderators.

    I do agree with you , if quoting a another poster is rule breaking, the the original post is rule breaking as well.

  25. newton,

    Yea, well that has been one of the biggest hypocrisies of Alan’s time here. If the posts I quoted were fine, why would Alan assume I was commenting because of moderation? Clearly Alan knows the posts were rule breaking, but just didn’t care, because IN EVERY CASE, it was the atheist insulting the theist-so nothing was done-ever!

    But what did Alan do instead, besides this egregious ignoring of the rule breakers? He suspended me for quoting them. How much more obvious does the ridiculous double standards have to be, for anyone to take what he says seriously anymore?

    Now Jock and Alan are at it once again. They say Entropys posts are all fine, because , oh they have content. Oh yes, such content:

    Looks like the other way around hoodoo, since you’d have to understand what’s going on before offering your “rebuttals.” If you understood, you’d know that you’re doing nothing but show off your ignorance, and that you’re stupid enough not to notice. You’re ridiculing yourself while pretending to make an example of moderation issues out of this.

    Oh, what content!

    If this post is ok, what’s wrong with:

    The virtuous question? But what really is virtuous to a man who does not believe in absolute virtue? So its unlikely you meant that. It could be that you meant punctilious, but that seems rather unlikely, given that you clearly suffer from some levels of retardation, and reading comprehension difficulties, so you wouldn’t even know what that meant, given your putrefied brain.

    And then question. Again, its also unlikely that you even know what a question is, you syphilitic wart you.

    So, in totem, when you discuss the proper question, we have to assume that what you really wish to say is, “Entropy is an infected douche-bag, of zero intellectual capacity, a steaming pile of rancid weasel shit, dripping through a sieve of loutish, flaccid fatty skin.” And who would disagree with that?

    How does his post have more substantive content, and less infractions?

    It doesn’t. The moderators are liars. Just because Lizzie hasn’t removed them, they are still liars.

  26. KN,

    Notice how Alan went out of his way to avoid answering your simple, direct questions.

    You had asked:

    Was it previously an established admin policy that giving unrestricted publishing permission to someone required consensus among administrators? Was Mung aware of that policy and did he agree to it when he accepted admin duties?

    Alan doesn’t respect you (or the other readers) enough to honestly and directly answer those questions, but I will.

    There was no such policy, and so of course Mung was not aware of it and did not agree to it when he accepted the moderator job.

    Alan knows this, but he’d prefer that you didn’t.

  27. phoodoo: Yea, well that has been one of the biggest hypocrisies of Alan’s time here. If the posts I quoted were fine, why would Alan assume I was commenting because of moderation?

    Of course you were commenting on moderation , I just think you should be rewarded for showing a tiny spark of creativity for a change.

    Clearly Alan knows the posts were rule breaking,

    I doubt someone with the awareness of an aardvark would know what rules are much less , the abstract notion of “breaking rules “. I

    but just didn’t care,

    Possible,

    because IN EVERY CASE, it was the atheist insulting the theist-so nothing was done-ever!

    So all I have to do is find one case of an atheist insulting an atheist or an theist insulting an atheist and nothing happening to refute your statement? Sounds pretty easy.

    I

    But what did Alan do instead, besides this egregious ignoring of the rule breakers? He suspended me for quoting them.

    I was not aware you were suspended, when and how long?

  28. newton,

    It’s actually hard to even find instances of theists directly insulting atheists here. I think maybe it has only happened with j mac, and only after he repeatedly had to endure the same from the other side. Interestingly, I don’t think any of my posts have ever been moved to guano for that reason, unless you count the last post, which was just trying to follow their examples. All my posts where moved because they embarrassed the moderators. And even then I was doing so on others behalf and not my own.

    So yea, you would have to find examples of theists insulting atheists and nothing being done about it. That would be pretty hard to find here.

    Funny that. More coincidences I guess

  29. phoodoo: How much more obvious does the ridiculous double standards have to be, for anyone to take what he says seriously anymore?

    What don’t understand is why you take this so seriously, why do you care what atheists say anyway?

    You hate Trump, how do you feel about all the theists who rabidly support him despite Trump being an adulterous, lying, cheating, vindictive, dummy? Does that make you anti-theist?

    Now Jock and Alan are at it once again. They say Entropys posts are all fine, because , oh they have content. Oh yes, such content:

    That has always been the way it worked, you just didn’t notice because you are never putting any content in beyond insults most of the time.

    You create a gray area, by throwing in content with the well crafted insult. It shows a a little effort, and effort is often rewarded.

  30. newton: I was not aware you were suspended, when and how long?

    phoodoo has never been suspended as far as I recall. The account was subject to pre-moderation for a short period a while ago.

  31. Alan Fox: phoodoo has never been suspended as far as I recall. The account was subject to pre-moderation for a short period a while ago.

    Putting me in pre moderation was the same as suspending me and you know it Alan. What was your reason Alan, tell everyone. Because I quoted others? If the posts I quoted were not rule breaking how can me quoting them be?

    You still refuse to admit you abused your moderator privileges by doing so. You did it because it exposed you for the hypocrite you are. You did the same thing to Keith’s and now to Mung. All efforts to silence your biggest critics. More coincidences Alan???

    How many atheists posters have you put in pre moderation Alan!?

    Coincidences abound

  32. Alan Fox,

    And I still feel that way, but, but…

    You still have an underlying bias that you can not separate your actions from unfortunately.

  33. phoodoo: It’s actually hard to even find instances of theists directly insulting atheists here.

    You mean beyond you, J-Mac, Gregory, and Sal?

    I think maybe it has only happened with j mac, and only after he repeatedly had to endure the same from the other side.

    It only has to happen once to refute EVERY TIME.

    Interestingly, I don’t think any of my posts have ever been moved to guano for that reason, unless you count the last post,which was just trying to follow their examples.

    Mung was moderator for a while, certainly no atheist went unpunished during that period, yet you still complained about moderation.

    All my posts where moved because they embarrassed the moderators. And even then I was doing so on others behalf and not my own.

    So they were moved because discussing moderation in wrong thread and you just admitted they were about moderation.

    So yea, you would have to find examples of theists insulting atheists and nothing being done about it. That would be pretty hard to find here.

    Read Gregory. He benefits from the content bias.

    Funny that. More coincidences I guess

    Funny that.

  34. newton,

    The online bullying and efforts at censorship is way way slanted in the direction of atheists doing it. It’s not even close. Heck even peaceful science, run by a supposed theist can’t seem to avoid it. Then there is Wikipedia, along with hundreds of sites designed to basically lie to people about science.

    If a site has the word skeptic anywhere in its title or mission, heads up, they are lying for their anti God

  35. phoodoo: And I still feel that way, but, but…

    You can feel anyway you want, but saying you were suspended when you weren’t does not help your argument.

  36. phoodoo: The online bullying and efforts at censorship

    I would think bullying only works if you know the person in real life or try to harm their reputation in real life. And not censorship, you have no rights to publish anything here.

    is way way slanted in the direction of atheists doing it.

    There are more atheists here,

    It’s not even close. Heck even peaceful science, run by a supposed theist can’t seem to avoid it.

    Why not ? He is completely in control, you think he is faking being a theist?

    Then there is Wikipedia, along with hundreds of sites designed to basically lie to people about science.

    For instance?

  37. And not censorship, you have no rights to publish anything here.

    Ha ha. Newton thinks that preventing people from posting isn’t censorship.

  38. phoodoo,

    What is wrong with your comment, you ask? It is incoherent.

    Your performance art is getting boring — it has not changed since 2015.
    As I noted back then:

    What gets guano’ed?
    Given general agreement that enforcement is stochastic, what phoodoo and WJM are doing is analogous to claiming that silver cars are less likely to get ticketed than red cars, then scanning the data to find the most egregious examples they can of silver cars not receiving tickets. This is called cherry-picking. They need to analyze a representative* sample of all four categories, red vs silver, ticketed vs not.
    But reviewing WJM’s list reveals another problem, better illustrated by the sports refereeing analogy:
    Partisan fans have a very strong tendency to conclude that the referee is biased against their team; many a time, I have watched a Rugby match where the ref is entirely unbiased, and overheard fans of both teams complain, sometimes rather vociferously, that the ref is obviously biased against them. Here’s the interesting thing: the erroneous perception of bias increases dramatically the more the fan lacks understanding of the Laws. It takes understanding to spot when a grey-area call goes in your team’s favor, and maturity to acknowledge the occurrence. It’s pretty entertaining to watch a fan jumping up and down screaming at an obviously correct call, just because they don’t understand the Law.
    Between 9 and 11 out of the 14 commenters that WJM cites are not breaking the rules; he does not appear to understand the rules at all. Hence the perception of bias.
    *technical term

    In short: everyone thinks the referee is biased against their team. The perception of bias increases, the more ignorant you are of the rules.
    The problem is exacerbated if you are on the losing side, as petrushka noted in the next comment.
    phoodoo continues with the ignorant partisan whining today, although I did find this comment quite revealing:

    phoodoo: The online bullying and efforts at censorship is way way slanted in the direction of atheists doing it. It’s not even close. Heck even peaceful science, run by a supposed theist can’t seem to avoid it. Then there is Wikipedia, along with hundreds of sites designed to basically lie to people about science.

    Even a theist-run site is biased against phoodoo. Huh?
    You might want to consider the possibility that it is reality that is biased against you, phoodoo.

  39. DNA_Jock,

    I have never posted at Peaceful science you fucking dope.

    The rest of your post is just as poorly informed.

  40. Why did Alan squirm to evade KN’s questions?

    It’s not hard to figure out. For Alan to answer honestly, as I did, would have been to admit that he had no valid reason for stripping Mung’s moderator privileges. And he didn’t. He was just throwing a tantrum because he didn’t get his way.

    As I wrote to KN:

    Alan doesn’t respect you (or the other readers) enough to honestly and directly answer those questions, but I will.

    There was no such policy, and so of course Mung was not aware of it and did not agree to it when he accepted the moderator job.

    Alan knows this, but he’d prefer that you didn’t.

    There is no rule allowing moderators to oust their fellow moderators. There certainly wasn’t an emergency — just Alan throwing a tantrum. And Mung was not violating an agreement that he had made with the other moderators.

  41. Of course, Alan isn’t the only evasive one. Neil and Jock do the same thing.

    keiths:

    Alan, Neil, Jock:

    Mung informs me (in a PM he sent seven hours ago) that he has been removed as moderator.

    If so, you guys have some explaining to do.

    Neil:

    His status as moderator is currently being reviewed. In the meantime, his moderator/administrator capabilities are suspended.

    It would not be appropriate to comment on the reasons at this time.

    phoodoo:

    It would be entirely appropriate.

    keiths:

    It’s entirely appropriate. This is the Moderation Issues thread, and the suspension of a fellow moderator is a moderation issue writ large.

    Mung informs me that Alan got upset when Mung restored me recently to Author status. Alan doesn’t like it when someone reverses his moderation abuses.

    Suspending Mung is likewise an abuse of moderator privileges, so of course you guys didn’t announce it and would rather not talk about it.

    Note that they kept quiet for four days until I broke the news. They knew they had blown it, and they were hoping that Lizzie might bail them out at the last minute by indicating her approval. She didn’t, and they are left holding the bag. The abuse is theirs, and it is obvious.

  42. Here’s DNA_Jock trying to avoid J-Mac’s directly (and directly relevant) question:

    J-Mac:

    Are you suggesting you have suspended a fellow moderator without the owner’s knowledge and approval?

    DNA_Jock:

    Lizzie is fully aware of the situation.

    keiths:

    That doesn’t answer J-Mac’s question:

    Are you suggesting you have suspended a fellow moderator without the owner’s knowledge and approval?

    DNA_Jock:
    <crickets>

    As we all now know, Lizzie had not indicated her approval, but Jock didn’t want us to know that.

  43. keiths,

    Why would Jock need to actually have Lizzie say she approves. He has seen rugby matches. And at some of those matches both sides felt the refs were bad. You know what I am saying?

  44. phoodoo:

    Why would Jock need to actually have Lizzie say she approves. He has seen rugby matches. And at some of those matches both sides felt the refs were bad. You know what I am saying?

    Heh. Jock has tried the rugby ref metaphor before. It didn’t work out so well for him. Or for Alan.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.