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. Thank you for the walk down memory lane, keiths. That has to be my second favorite example of your utter cluelessness. It is truly sweet that you think otherwise. Predictable, but sweet all the same.

    E4page bug

  2. DNA_Jock,

    I went to a football match once, and everyone said the referees did a fair job.

    I guess they must have sucked.

  3. DNA_Jock:

    Thank you for the walk down memory lane, keiths. That has to be my second favorite example of your utter cluelessness. It is truly sweet that you think otherwise. Predictable, but sweet all the same.

    You’re a terrible bluffer, Jock.

    That exchange was a disaster for you because your attempted defense of Alan and Neil’s behavior — that they had acted “in the spirit of the rules” — couldn’t withstand scrutiny.

    That’s why you left my questions unanswered:

    Jock:

    Regarding your characterization of Alan and Neil’s behavior: “Well, that’s not how I saw it.”

    keiths:

    Well, you might want to support your characterization with an actual argument. When Alan prevented me from posting in the Moderation Issues thread, how was that “in the spirit” of the rules and of Lizzie’s aims for TSZ?

    And if Neil’s “timeout” rule, Alan’s Wine Cellar rule, and Alan’s interference with the Moderation Issues thread were all “in the spirit” of the rules and of Lizzie’s intentions, why do you suppose she nixed all of them?

    Jock:

    <crickets>

  4. phoodoo: Turns outs Alan is not nearly as concerned about libel laws as he pretended I guess.

    But in this case, I’m (apparently) making libellous accusations on my own behalf, so I can decide whether to continue or withdraw or the hosting site can decide to remove the material. Frankly, I fail to see how referring to pseudonymous internet personas as “the three misogynists” is libellous but they are entitled to bring a case if they wish, I guess.

    If third parties make what admins judge to be libellous accusations here, they may be removed, especially if we receive objections from injured parties.

    Have you followed the link? Here it is.

  5. Alan Fox,

    Who do you think you are fooling, besides yourself. You never cared about libel laws. You were out to try to get keiths. You never care about it when the atheists here routinely disparage well know members of the ID community.

    You are so full of shit Alan, only you could be suckered by your lies.

  6. Awwh, keiths, you are cute, thinking that I did not reply to your characterization of Neil and Alan’s behavior:
    keiths’s recap:

    keiths:

    Well, you might want to support your characterization with an actual argument. When Alan prevented me from posting in the Moderation Issues thread, how was that “in the spirit” of the rules and of Lizzie’s aims for TSZ?

    And if Neil’s “timeout” rule, Alan’s Wine Cellar rule, and Alan’s interference with the Moderation Issues thread were all “in the spirit” of the rules and of Lizzie’s intentions, why do you suppose she nixed all of them?

    Jock:

    <crickets>

    The actual interaction:
    keiths

    Well, you might want to support your characterization with an actual argument. When Alan prevented me from posting in the Moderation Issues thread, how was that “in the spirit” of the rules and of Lizzie’s aims for TSZ?

    And if Neil’s “timeout” rule, Alan’s Wine Cellar rule, and Alan’s interference with the Moderation Issues thread were all “in the spirit” of the rules and of Lizzie’s intentions, why do you suppose she nixed all of them?

    Your emotions are getting the better of you, DNA_Jock. Had you been calmer, I don’t think you would have hitched your wagon to this lame horse.

    DNA_Jock (in the next comment)

    [Drinks beer]

    [Sighs]

    [Drinks beer again]

    Readers will have to read the thread to understand the beer reference. As I said, that thread is my second favorite example of keiths’s cluelessness.
    I am enjoying the fact that he chose to omit his “your emotions are getting the better of you” motive-mongering from his recap…

  7. Jock,

    As I said, you’re a terrible bluffer.

    Your theatrical sighs and beer sips weren’t an answer to my questions — they were an evasion. What else could you do? You knew that what Alan and Neil did was not “in the spirit of the rules.”

    Similar questions apply to the more recent moderation fuckups. How was it “in the spirit of the rules” to out Gregory against his wishes, as you did? To stage a coup against a fellow moderator instead of waiting for Lizzie’s input? To designate J-Mac’s thread as a no-rules thread and to fan the flames, hoping that people would pile onto him?

  8. Alan:

    But in this case, I’m (apparently) making libellous accusations on my own behalf, so I can decide whether to continue or withdraw or the hosting site can decide to remove the material. Frankly, I fail to see how referring to pseudonymous internet personas as “the three misogynists” is libellous but they are entitled to bring a case if they wish, I guess.

    Get over yourself, Alan. No one has threatened to sue, as I pointed out yesterday:

    Alan:

    If you think I can libel pseudonymous internet account holders by mentioning my thoughts about them, then sue and be damned.

    keiths:

    Who said anything about suing for libel?  You’re the doofus who runs around censoring people, not Rich, Patrick, or me.

    I don’t want to silence you.  When you open your mouth, you reinforce the truths I’ve been telling about you.  All I have to do is sit back and point it out.

    As in this case.  You’ve already admitted that you have a lying problem.  This false misogyny accusation just confirms it.

  9. Meanwhile, you still haven’t supplied any evidence that we acted misogynistically toward hotshoe.

    Perhaps there’s a lesson for you in all of this: If you don’t want to look like a dishonest ass, then don’t make false accusations.

  10. keiths:
    Meanwhile, you still haven’t supplied any evidence that we acted misogynistically toward hotshoe.

    I don’t know what your intent was (I used to wonder about that but it now seems congenital). The result was clear. She left.

  11. keiths:

    Meanwhile, you still haven’t supplied any evidence that we acted misogynistically toward hotshoe.

    Perhaps there’s a lesson for you in all of this: If you don’t want to look like a dishonest ass, then don’t make false accusations.

    Alan:

    I don’t know what your intent was (I used to wonder about that but it now seems congenital). The result was clear. She left.

    The premise was “hotshoe left”, and your dipshit conclusion was “therefore misogyny.”

    I wrote:

    Patrick asks Alan to point out the supposed misogyny.

    Alan links to a comment from hotshoe that neither demonstrates, nor even attempts to demonstrate, that she was being treated misogynistically.

    He also makes a vague reference to “the environs” of that comment without pointing out any misogyny therein.

    In support of his “three misogynists” accusation, he writes

    The reference was to your, Patrick and keiths’s constructive dismissal of hotshoe, TSZ’s last female contributor.

    …as if disagreeing with a woman were synonymous with misogyny, and as if her being the “last female contributor” meant that we should treat her differently from everyone else at TSZ.

    I regret missing that episode till it was too late to salvage.

    As if hotshoe were some delicate flower who, being female, needed special protection from the likes of Alan, of all people.

    She was frustrated because she didn’t get her way.  She left of her own volition.  It wasn’t misogyny, which is why Alan can’t point to any.

  12. And:

    I also love Alan’s reference to “constructive dismissal”, as if hotshoe were an employee who had been treated unfairly and had resigned in protest.

    Her comment was treated exactly the same as mine, Alan. Neil decided to leave both comments in place, and Patrick agreed.

    Go ahead and explain to us how that amounts to her “constructive dismissal”.

  13. Because I take her at her word and it fits the facts. She left and she said she left because of the way you three (especially you and Patrick, to be fair to Rich) treated her. And the pattern of time and comments fit that scenario.

    Perhaps you don’t realize how generally obnoxious you are. It’s possible, I suppose. It takes talent or pathology to sustain this Olympic level.

  14. Alan,

    Because I take her at her word and it fits the facts.

    You must be referring to “alternative facts”, because the actual facts don’t support your story at all.

    Her comment was treated exactly the same as mine, Alan. Neil decided to leave both comments in place, and Patrick agreed.

    Hotshoe wanted special treatment, and she didn’t get it. Therefore misogyny, according to your dimwitted reasoning.

  15. Maybe if Patrick had flirted with you too, you’d understand, keiths. Your own treatment of her was shitty, but no different from your treatment of everyone else you disagree with,. Not misogynistic, imo, just generally obno. Patrick, OTOH, was inapproproiate–although again misogynistic isn’t the right word. Just gross I guess. Piggish. Typical of him too, in a way–doofus that he is–but different in that he didn’t indicate his sexual attraction to anybody else here, afaik.

    Anyhow, Alan, for all his nearly constant confusion and occasional dissimulation about pretty much everything, is quite correct about why hotshoe left. She couldn’t stand anymore assininity from you two. She PM-ed me about it several times.

  16. walto: Alan, for all his nearly constant confusion and occasional dissimulation about pretty much everything,

    🙆

  17. walto,

    As you noted, Alan’s accusations of misogyny are false. I doubt he’ll retract them, though. That would be too… honest.

    Regarding hotshoe and others like her, the goal is not to retain every commenter at any cost. The goals of the site are more important. Hotshoe wanted Neil and Patrick to do her bidding instead of moderating fairly. They rightly refused.

    She could gleefully dish it out, but she couldn’t take it. It’s no wonder she didn’t last.

    Look at the two comments again. Here, hotshoe labels me and fifth as “Dumb” and “Dumber”:

    A sign that keiths is almost certainly wrong here is that keiths is asserting something fifthmonarchyman admires as a “good job”.

    OF course it’s possible that when Dumb says “X”and Dumber says “Good job about X, Dumb” that they have coincidentally happened to hit on something that’s actually smart and correct.

    But probability is no, they’re just being mistaken together.

    I replied:

    Well, Dumbest, you’re certainly welcome to step in and set me and Dumber straight.

    Hotshoe, given a taste of her own medicine, demanded that my comment be guanoed. But not hers, of course.

    I commented:

    Too funny. Hotshoe labels me and fifth as “Dumb and Dumber”, but she can’t take it when I refer to her as “Dumbest”.

    Hypocrisy, thy name is hotshoe.

    Glen Davidson dryly noted:

    But you used the superlative, not the comparative.

    It makes all the difference.

    Alan seems to think that hotshoe, as “TSZ’s last female contributor”, deserved special treatment. I don’t. I think that comments should be treated fairly regardless of the gender of the commenter.

  18. keiths,

    Again, I don’t think you showed any misogyny in your numerous attacks on hotshoe. And I haven’t suggested that the comment you put above should have been guanoed and hers not. I’m just saying that Alan is quite correct when he says that your and Patrick’s obnoxiousness were the reason she left. Others too, were driven away, like sophisticat. It’s too bad.

  19. walto:
    keiths,

    Again, I don’t think you showed any misogyny in your numerous attacks on hotshoe. And I haven’t suggested that the comment you put above should have been guanoed and hers not. I’m just saying that Alan is quite correct when he says that your and Patrick’s obnoxiousness were the reason she left. Others too, were driven away, like sophisticat. It’s too bad.

    The net in general often attracts people who enjoy antagonistic, rather than cooperative, interactions. I’m one who enjoys some amount of antagonistic interaction, but not to the level of others. EESH!

    I personally like the more technical, nerdy discussions, only moderate amounts of antagonism.

    The ignore button made it possible for me to continue here.

  20. stcordova:
    I personally like the more technical, nerdy discussions, only moderate amounts of antagonism.

    Sorry Salvador, but those kinds of conversations would require a level of intellectual engagement that you’re unwilling and/or unable to attain.

  21. walto,

    Again, I don’t think you showed any misogyny in your numerous attacks on hotshoe.

    Of course not. That’s a fabrication by the increasingly desperate Alan.

    Amusingly, it was hotshoe herself who gratuitously brought gender into the moderation discussion with comments like…

    Jesus fucking christ. Goddamned dudebro atheist assholes.

    …and…

    Notice the scumwad dudebro behavior which keiths demonstrates,completely without excuse.

    Rich responded:

    Feel free to bring in gender for no reason whatsoever and blame Patrick. Name calling too, please.

  22. walto,

    And I haven’t suggested that the comment you put above should have been guanoed and hers not.

    She did. She actually claimed that my comment was rule violating and hers wasn’t, which is inane. (If you want to see just how inane, the comments can be found here.)

    I’m just saying that Alan is quite correct when he says that your and Patrick’s obnoxiousness were the reason she left.

    I’m sure that’s what she told you, and it might even have been the story she told herself. Not so self-flattering to admit that she was being a hypocrite and flouncing because she wasn’t getting the special treatment she felt entitled to.

  23. At AtBC, Patrick responds to Alan’s continued dipshittery:

    Alan:

    keiths:

    I see that Alan still hasn’t supported his allegations of misogyny.

    Has he run away again?

    I think I have.

    You have not. Please cite the specific comments made by each of us that contain misogynistic statements. If you cannot, have the decency to retract your baseless accusations.

    I do think of you three as the three misogynists.

    Think what you like, but when you make your thoughts public you have a duty to support them.

    It is intended as an insult, as is your “white knighting SJW”.

    The difference is that you have clearly demonstrated your white knighting behavior, in this very thread. Rich, Keith, and I have not demonstrated misogyny here or at TSZ.

    If you think I can libel pseudonymous internet account holders by mentioning my thoughts about them, then sue and be damned.

    I see that you have repeated your defamatory allegations at TSZ and linked here. Given that my real name and email address are available there, you’ve clearly demonstrated that the concerns over libelous content in keiths’ case were no more than a smokescreen to cover your personal vendetta against him. Of course, we knew that anyway.

    I’m married to a woman and am the father of daughters, so I take your slurs seriously. Do you have the integrity to support your aspersions or retract them?

  24. keiths: I’m sure that’s what she told you, and it might even have been the story she told herself. Not so self-flattering to admit that she was being a hypocrite and flouncing because she wasn’t getting the special treatment she felt entitled to.

    Wow, what a narrative. If you left, do you think you’d know why–or should we ask Jock, Neil and Alan for the REAL reason–the one you’re utterly unaware of?

  25. I did not get the impression that Rich was misogynistic.
    On the other hand, given that Patrick provided this gem, he should probably get down from that horse.

  26. Regarding this:

    keiths: Jock,

    As I said, you’re a terrible bluffer.

    Your theatrical sighs and beer sips weren’t an answer to my questions — they were an evasion. What else could you do? You knew that what Alan and Neil did was not “in the spirit of the rules.”

    Similar questions apply to the more recent moderation fuckups. How was it “in the spirit of the rules” to out Gregory against his wishes, as you did? To stage a coup against a fellow moderator instead of waiting for Lizzie’s input? To designate J-Mac’s thread as a no-rules thread and to fan the flames, hoping that people would pile onto him?

    I decline to accept your premises.
    Every.Single.One.Of.Them.
    That was what the beer sipping was about.
    By way of illustration, I did not approve* of making J-Mac’s thread a no-rules thread and I did not fan the flames, hoping people would pile on.
    People as far removed from reality as J-Mac are best countered with calm refutation. keiths falls in this category too.

    *I did consent, mind you.

  27. DNA_Jock:
    I did not get the impression that Rich was misogynistic.
    On the other hand, given that Patrick provided this gem, he should probably get down from that horse.

    No shit. In his defense, though, her repeated indications of disinterest in his his declarations of affection must have been hard for any manly man like Patrick to take. Some men have it soooo hard. 🙁

  28. Jock:

    I did not get the impression that Rich was misogynistic.
    On the other hand, given that Patrick provided this gem, he should probably get down from that horse.

    walto:

    No shit.

    Do you guys actually think that image is misogynistic? If so, why?

  29. Jock:

    I decline to accept your premises.
    Every.Single.One.Of.Them.

    You’re evading my questions.

    By way of illustration, I did not approve* of making J-Mac’s thread a no-rules thread and I did not fan the flames, hoping people would pile on.

    Who said you did? Read it again:

    keiths: Jock,

    As I said, you’re a terrible bluffer.

    Your theatrical sighs and beer sips weren’t an answer to my questions — they were an evasion. What else could you do? You knew that what Alan and Neil did was not “in the spirit of the rules.”

    Similar questions apply to the more recent moderation fuckups. How was it “in the spirit of the rules” to out Gregory against his wishes, as you did? To stage a coup against a fellow moderator instead of waiting for Lizzie’s input? To designate J-Mac’s thread as a no-rules thread and to fan the flames, hoping that people would pile onto him?

    It’s telling that the one premise you explicitly mentioned wasn’t a premise of mine at all.

  30. Patrick posted this at AtBC this morning:

    It occurs to me that this is a great opportunity for DNA Jock to demonstrate his commitment to the safety of TSZ. Alan is both an EU resident and a site administrator (after his little coup, he’s effectively the site owner). He has made completely unfounded, defamatory comments about not just one but three people, two of whom are easily identifiable in the real world. This poses far greater risk to TSZ than what keiths, a US citizen with no official role at the site, did.

    The appropriate response, based on Alan’s past behavior, would be to ban Alan for 30 days and demote him to contributor status upon his return. He set the precedent, he should live with it.

  31. keiths: It occurs to me that this is a great opportunity for DNA Jock to demonstrate his commitment to the safety of TSZ. Alan is both an EU resident and a site administrator (after his little coup, he’s effectively the site owner). He has made completely unfounded, defamatory comments about not just one but three people, two of whom are easily identifiable in the real world. This poses far greater risk to TSZ than what keiths, a US citizen with no official role at the site, did.

    I don’t understand the residency business. Can you explain why it’s relevant that you are a U.S. citizen and Alan is an E.U. citizen?

  32. walto,

    I don’t understand the residency business. Can you explain why it’s relevant that you are a U.S. citizen and Alan is an E.U. citizen?

    I don’t know. I haven’t researched that aspect of libel law.

    You’ll have to ask Patrick.

  33. Meanwhile, I’m still interested in this:

    walto:

    Others too, were driven away, like sophisticat.

    keiths:

    Do tell.

    Details, please.

  34. Haha. As you know why hotshoe left, whatever she may have said or even thought why don’t you tell us?

  35. You’re the one who claims to know why sophisticat left.

    Tell us what you know.

  36. No. You tell us what YOU know, since that trumps everything else anyhow. (I mean in spite of your numerous claims that you don’t even know your own name.)

    So tell us. Why did sophisticat and RB leave?

  37. walto:
    And why did KN and Bruce both leave several times?

    Probably from all the libel law infractions here that were being ignored by Alan and Jock. They didn’t want to get swept up in the legal pitfalls.

    Alan has two set of standards. One that he lies about and one that he doesn’t believe in.

  38. walto,

    You seem to be squirming, but why?

    It’s your claim:

    Others too, were driven away, like sophisticat. It’s too bad.

    Surely you can support it, no?

  39. Phoodoo, it’s true that the theists are generally more polite than the atheists here. You, Joe (who’s gone), Erik, FMM (when he insists that everyone is lying), and very rarely mung are the only theists I can think of that get nasty. Many more atheists–including me–are regularly out of line. And the moderators are sometimes not entirely impartial–as you say/whine.

    But, keep in mind, we meanie non-theists whack each other too. Me and keithrick, Keith and jock, Keith and Alan, me and Alan. Keith and Neil. Etc. So even if it doesn’t entirely even out, the biggest problem isn’t actually partiality–it’s uncivility. And the moderators aren’t that. I am, sometimes, but those guys aren’t. Alan has done some incoherent things, yes, but, they’re not as big a deal as you, Keith or Patrick make it. We should all be corneel and Vince and Newton, but alas.

    Let him among us without etc. Etc.

  40. keiths:
    walto,

    You seem to be squirming, but why?

    It’s your claim:

    Surely you can support it, no?

    Oh, c’mon. Tell us already!!! You’re just being modest now! We all know that you know!

    And my ‘support’ could never match the ‘support’you’ve given for your reason for hotshoe’s departure. If I could tell you what everyone said, your theories would still be right, wouldn’t they?

    If I’m squirming, it’s because I’m dying for you to divulge more deep truths!

  41. Heh. Here’s walto admitting that he doesn’t know why sophisticat and RB left. He just “thinks” that Patrick and I drove them away — although “hopes” might be more accurate:

    Re: the (lamented) departure of Sophisticat, I think someone might pass along to him/her, hotshoe, and, maybe Replicating (?) Bill, that both keiths and patrick are gone and seem not be coming back–to see if that might give them the impetus to return themselves. Those three are all sorely missed (by me, anyhow), and I think it was keitrick that drove them all away. I know it was in hotshoe’s case.

    That was at the end of January. Notice how his imagination elevated it to a certainty between then and now:

    Others too, were driven away, like sophisticat. It’s too bad.

    Also notice the tendentious reasoning: Sophisticat, RB and hotshoe left. Therefore walto concludes that they were “driven away”, like leaves in the wind.

    Hotshoe labels me and fifth “Dumb” and “Dumber” in a comment. I turn the tables on her, saying

    Well, Dumbest, you’re certainly welcome to step in and set me and Dumber straight.

    Oh, the humanity! Who could withstand the ferocity of the word “Dumbest”? Hotshoe’s fate was sealed. She was driven away from TSZ by the awfulness of that verbal onslaught.

    Not. She threw a tantrum and flounced. She could dish it out, but she couldn’t take it.

  42. I am also still curious about this:

    Jock:

    I did not get the impression that Rich was misogynistic.
    On the other hand, given that Patrick provided this gem, he should probably get down from that horse.

    walto:

    No shit.

    keiths:

    Do you guys actually think that image is misogynistic? If so, why?

Leave a Reply

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