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.
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
DNA_Jock,
I went to a football match once, and everyone said the referees did a fair job.
I guess they must have sucked.
Mods,
There is a comment from a new member, Willem, in the pending queue.
DNA_Jock:
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:
keiths:
Jock:
keiths, yesterday:
Looks like my comment got under Alan’s skin. After two weeks of failing to support his accusation, he finally showed up at AtBC this morning and again failed to support his accusation.
Heh.
keiths,
Turns outs Alan is not nearly as concerned about libel laws as he pretended I guess.
Just like scabies!
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.
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.
Awwh, keiths, you are cute, thinking that I did not reply to your characterization of Neil and Alan’s behavior:
keiths’s recap:
The actual interaction:
keiths
DNA_Jock (in the next comment)
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…
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?
Alan, to phoodoo:
That’s not the link. This is.
Alan:
Get over yourself, Alan. No one has threatened to sue, as I pointed out yesterday:
Alan:
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.
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.
keiths:
Alan:
The premise was “hotshoe left”, and your dipshit conclusion was “therefore misogyny.”
I wrote:
And:
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.
Alan,
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.
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.
🙆
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”:
I replied:
Hotshoe, given a taste of her own medicine, demanded that my comment be guanoed. But not hers, of course.
I commented:
Glen Davidson dryly noted:
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.
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.
Sorry Salvador, but those kinds of conversations would require a level of intellectual engagement that you’re unwilling and/or unable to attain.
walto,
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…
…and…
Rich responded:
walto,
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 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.
walto,
Do tell.
At AtBC, Patrick responds to Alan’s continued dipshittery:
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?
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.
Regarding this:
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.
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. 🙁
Jock:
walto:
Do you guys actually think that image is misogynistic? If so, why?
walto,
I doubt that hotshoe wants to admit her hypocrisy to herself, but the evidence of it is clear.
Jock:
You’re evading my questions.
Who said you did? Read it again:
It’s telling that the one premise you explicitly mentioned wasn’t a premise of mine at all.
Patrick posted this at AtBC this morning:
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?
walto,
I don’t know. I haven’t researched that aspect of libel law.
You’ll have to ask Patrick.
Meanwhile, I’m still interested in this:
walto:
keiths:
Details, please.
Haha. As you know why hotshoe left, whatever she may have said or even thought why don’t you tell us?
You’re the one who claims to know why sophisticat left.
Tell us what you know.
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?
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.
walto,
You seem to be squirming, but why?
It’s your claim:
Surely you can support it, no?
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.
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!
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:
That was at the end of January. Notice how his imagination elevated it to a certainty between then and now:
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
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.
I am also still curious about this:
Jock:
walto:
keiths: