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+

1,676 thoughts on “Moderation Issues (6)

  1. Gregory,
    From your response, it appears that you understand the rule, you wish to claim protection under it (and then some, insisting that people do not use any diminutives of your name), but you do not wish to be constrained by it. This does not strike me as equitable.
    You also seem to be rather vituperative about anyone who dares to disagree with the might Gregory [redacted], and admit to a history of precisely the behaviour that you would want the moderators to prevent others from indulging in.
    Frankly, you are making my point for me.
    Obviously, you are not responsible for J-Mac coming along right afterwards and bastardizing my handle and Neil’s in an attempt to insult us, but I hope you can appreciate the irony there.

    0
  2. DNA_Jock:
    Gregory,
    From your response, it appears that you understand the rule, you wish to claim protection under it (and then some, insisting that people do not use any diminutives of your name), but you do not wish to be constrained by it. This does not strike me as equitable.
    You also seem to be rather vituperative about anyone who dares to disagree with the might Gregory [redacted], and admit to a history of precisely the behaviour that you would want the moderators to prevent others from indulging in.
    Frankly, you are making my point for me.
    Obviously, you are not responsible for J-Mac coming along right afterwards and bastardizing my handle and Neil’s in an attempt to insult us, but I hope you can appreciate the irony there.

    Insulting? You are definitely joking…
    Maybe you should publish Gregory’s OP with the note you placed on mine?

    [Admin edit: This thread is, with the agreement of the thread author, a rule-free thread.] ?
    And then see if he, and others, are going to find it funny…

    http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/help-dr-lenski-to-design-real-ltee/

    0
  3. No J-Mac, I did not place that notation on your thread.
    I thought that was a bad idea when it was done (with your consent) to your thread, and I still think it is a bad idea. You have me confused with someone else.

    0
  4. DNA_Jock:
    No J-Mac, I did not place that notation on your thread.
    I thought that was a bad idea when it was done (with your consent) to your thread, and I still think it is a bad idea. You have me confused with someone else.

    This trick didn’t work for the Nazis at the Nuremberg trails who thought it was a bad idea to exterminate millions of Jews…

    0
  5. Neil Rickert: As it stands, this is a personal attack post.No, I will not approve it.

    It’s a subtle one…Just like you conspired with Jock to force me to agree to the conditions of your scheme in order to expose me to insults on the LTEE OP…

    0
  6. J-Mac: This trick didn’t work for the Nazis at the Nuremberg trails who thought it was a bad idea to exterminate millions of Jews…

    Did you really just make an analogy between moderation and the Holocaust??? Are you nuts?

    0
  7. J-Mac: It’s a subtle one…Just like you conspired with Jock to force me to agree to the conditions of your scheme in order to expose me to insults on the LTEE OP…

    Is someone forcing you now to expose yourself to insults or is it your idea ?

    0
  8. newton: Did you really just make an analogy between moderation and the Holocaust??? Are you nuts?

    No. I attempted to make the clear point to that there is a drastic difference between disagreeing with orders, and not doing anything about it, and compliance…
    While it maybe an extreme analogy, it does drive the point home because many Nazis claimed that they had disagreed with superior orders and yet they complied with them… “We were just following the orders”

    While this is a public blog, it represents the clash of ideologies…
    Neil took it upon himself to implement censorship to protect his bias side against the owners wishes and site rules…

    Therefore, Jock’s compliance is inexcusable…

    0
  9. newton: Is someone forcingyou now to expose yourself to insults or is it your idea ?

    The greatest part of free will is that you can oppose insults and biases with evidence…
    That’s what TSZ was supposed to be about until the holy trinity of Alan, Neil and Jock took over…

    0
  10. J-Mac: No. I attempted to make the clear point to that there is a drastic difference between disagreeing with orders, and not doing anything about it, and compliance…

    By using the the murder and torture of millions of people as an example of similar behavior.

    While it maybe an extreme analogy, it does drive the point home because many Nazis claimed that they had disagreed with superior orders and yet they complied with them… “We were just following the orders”

    You think maybe?

    While this is a public blog, it represents the clash of ideologies…
    Neil took it upon himself to implement censorship to protect his bias side against the owners wishes and site rules…

    Therefore, Jock’s compliance is inexcusable…

    0
  11. newton: By using the the murder and torture of millions of people as an example of similar behavior.

    Sorry about the post , cooking ribs, got distracted, timed out the edit

    0
  12. J-Mac: The greatest part of free will is that you can oppose insults and biases with evidence…

    In your case it seems like the ability to respond with insults when presented with evidence is the dominant part.

    That’s what TSZ was supposed to be about until the holy trinity of Alan, Neil and Jock took ove

    It does not exist without them, and they were asked and have not been requested to leave.

    In fact , there has been a relaxation of moderation.

    0
  13. newton,

    It does not exist without them…

    Oh, please. TSZ depends on its contributors and commenters — not the moderators — for its existence.

    In fact , there has been a relaxation of moderation.

    Alan’s departure has been of enormous benefit to TSZ, which is now thriving in his absence. Jock and Neil seem to be subdued, at least for the time being, possibly due to the blowback from their disastrous coup against Mung.

    Less moderation = a better TSZ.

    0
  14. This is worth a repost:

    Alan, in March:

    Maybe it’s time to pack up the experiment and move on. This site can be archived and whoever wants to set up a site or forum more in line with their preferences should go ahead and do so.

    Alan was ready to shut the site down. But now that he and his abuses are gone, TSZ is thriving again as a site for vigorous and substantive discussion.

    There are still abuses, such as Neil and Jock’s refusal to restore me to Author status, but even they are behaving better in Alan’s absence.

    It’s a shame that all of this didn’t happen before the three of them deposed Mung as moderator.

    0
  15. keiths:
    newton,

    Oh, please.TSZ depends on its contributors and commenters — not the moderators — for its existence.

    And its ownership to provide a place for those commenters. You think Lizzie would continue to provide the ownership to an unmoderated site . Not me.

    Alan’s departure has been of enormous benefit to TSZ, which is now thriving in his absence

    Like to see the numbers for that claim

    Jock and Neil seem to be subdued, at least for the time being, possibly due to the blowback from their disastrous coup against Mung.

    And what particular blowback is that? Everyone still has their job, Lizzie made no changes. You still are complaining about moderation. Christianity still to be enduring without mung as a moderator. Seems pretty much the same.

    Less moderation = a better TSZ.

    Less is good , none is not.

    0
  16. newton,

    Well, don’t worry. Neils is here to tell you he is still going to play the role of Alan. You know, ignoring ten pages of vacuous insults, then postings warnings (to the non-atheists, suprise, surprise) if they respond.

    So its business as usual really. Just Neil being his old biased self, hoping to take up some slack for Alan.

    0
  17. phoodoo:
    newton,

    Well, don’t worry.Neils is here to tell you he is still going to play the role of Alan.

    Thanks but I usually save my worry for things that matter. My position is without him and the others mods ,Lizzie folds the tent. The fact ,even with them to do the work of running the place , she has not is interesting and surprising.

    You know, ignoring ten pages of vacuous insults, then postings warnings (to the non-atheists, suprise, surprise) if they respond.

    Perhaps he is trying to help you remember and follow the words of God “

    “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well.”

    So its business as usual really.Just Neil being his old biased self, hoping to take up some slack for Alan.

    Neil ,probably, is hoping he can make a clean getaway like Alan.

    0
  18. Due to continued moderator abuses, another OP of mine is being held — pointlessly — in the Pending queue.

    1+
  19. Sad to see there is still no real effort to improve this site to facilitate interesting discussions with folks holding a different perspective
    It is a shame.

    Peace

    0
  20. Dear Admins/Mods:

    We’ve got a LaTeX problem. First I enter an equation that’s previously been rendered.

        \[\chi = -\!\log_2[ 10^{120} \cdot \varphi_S(T)\cdot \mathbf{P}(T|\mathbf{H})]\]

    There’s no problem. I copy-and-paste that equation below, and change the base of the logarithm from 2 to 3:

        \[\chi = -\!\log_3[ 10^{120} \cdot \varphi_S(T)\cdot \mathbf{P}(T|\mathbf{H})]\]

    It appears to me that the system reuses renderings of equations it has rendered before, that the it doesn’t have storage it needs to render new equations. The following is an attempt to display 2 + 2 = 193, which I predict will fail:

        \[2 + 2 = 193.\]

    Now I attempt to do the same inline: 2 + 2 = 193.

    0
  21. P.S. (edited)–I’ve seen Alan do 1 + 1 = 2, so I believe that there’s already a .dvi file for the expression, and that one or the other (or both) of the following will work: 1 + 1 = 2

        \[1 + 1 = 2\]

    What this tells me is that Alan did an inline equation, not a display equation.

    ETA: Put simply, it looks like either (1) we’ve used up the available storage (wherever .dvi files go) or (2) the LaTeX plugin no longer has permission to write .dvi files.

    IMPORTANT: Someone else has just posted a complaint about this at the QuickLaTeX site, so the problem is not unique to us. There’s not yet a solution.

    0
  22. I’ve gotten a response from the creator of QuickLaTeX:

    Pavel Holoborodko
    Posted July 23, 2019 at 7:25 pm | #
    OK, geat, thank you very much for the example, now we can reproduce the issue.
    We will do detailed server diagnostics within next several hours (and hopefully will fix the issue).

    0
  23. Admins:

    Looking in our (local) QuickLaTeX cache

    http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/wp-content/ql-cache/

    I see only locally stored PNG images and symbolic links to remotely stored PNG images — not .dvi files. Evidently the images are generated remotely. So the failure to create the .dvi file — an intermediate step in creating the image — evidently is at the QuickLaTeX site, not here.

    ETA: Things are working fine now: 2 +2 = 193.

    Well, hell… My examples, above, of what was broken now make no sense.

    0
  24. Looks like the external site had a problem that was fixed, so now your latex equations look just fine.

    1+
  25. It’s been 17 days since the last new thread. I’m thinking of starting a thread on the Hemaglobin Number that Dawkins referenced in his weasel description. Anyone else in the queue? If so, I’ll wait my turn.

    0
  26. Alan Fox
    Ignored on August 21, 2019 at 6:58 pm said:
    @ Biil

    Sure, you’ve been taking a bit of stick in this thread but, really, you bring it on yourself. The exasperation you generate in others is understandable. And it isn’t limited to TSZ. I see John Harshman’s irritation laid bare elsewhere.

    I know it’s a bit out of date now (2005), but you might find Sean Carroll’s Endless Forms Most Beautiful useful in avoiding straw men.

    The stain of TSZ has returned. Its not good news for anyone here. This is a so called retired moderator, who moderates writing this crap.

    The site improved immensely while you were away, surely you see that. No one is welcoming you back. If you really have this sites best interest in mind, you will retire immediately from any authority over this site, and just post as everyone else does. But you don’t have this sites best interest in mind, you have you own interests. You are fully unable to rein in your most biased, selfish pursuits. Along with your thin skin, and defensive posture, its not a good combination.

    If you accuse Bill of bringing the insults on himself, what about you?

    0
  27. Neil Rickert:
    J-Mac,

    Published.But your OP seems to be asking for uninformed speculation, so I’m not expecting much from the new topic.

    On, great! I’m glad you’ve wrong before…😉

    0
  28. J-Mac,

    Couldn’t you at least find a primary source for this story? The Daily Express? They are not noted for accuracy or integrity.

    0
  29. Like Bond et al 2013, perhaps…

    Within the errors, the age of HD 140283 does not conflict with the age of the Universe, 13.77 +/- 0.06 Gyr, based on the microwave background and Hubble constant, but it must have formed soon after the big bang.

    The Daily Express doesn’t understand what an error term is, perhaps?

    0
  30. Look what you sad excuse fucking moderators did on the Swami thread. Gregory invites Paul Nelson to answer some questions, which he does so quite adroitly, and what do you moderators do to make sure the thread doesn’t spiral out of control? Zero. Fucking zilch. Worse than zilch.

    Oh, Jock and Neils, they are going to use the hands off approach now. So they are going to let some stuff go. Great. But of course Jock is still going to pursue his vendetta against Nonlin, so if Nonlin says the word “untrue” Jock is going to jump in and guano his comments with his little schoolmarm warning, Hey, that’s enough!

    Meanwhile, his everything else goes. “Shoves your head up your ass, you fucking moron, go screw yourself, you idiot uneducated creationists who can’t think and just need a God to ..blah blah blah…

    So you want important, educated responses here? No you don’t. You want your little propaganda fanboy site. So Nelson says screw you guys, I ain’t wasting my time here. I think that great. I hope he never comes back. This site doesn’t deserve any respect. Neil doesn’t deserve any respect Alan doesn’t deserve any respect. And jock, go blow Entropy, you fucking wanker.

    I am satisfied that my role here has been to show what atheist websites really try to do. But, the foolish moderators are so inept, that anyone else who comes here can see it in five posts.

    Fucking idiots.

    1+
  31. phoodoo,

    The problem for Paul Nelson is that “Intelligent Design” is not a scientific concept and is bereft of any merit, such as a testable hypothesis. This has always been so since ID first surfaced as an ideological movement. Being called on that , I imagine, is a bit frustrating.

    0
  32. Alan Fox,

    Then why did you guano my posts that told you to pull your ass out of your ass? Are those posts against the rules Alan? Or they only against the rules sometimes?

    You are a pathetic liar Alan. Remember how no one was begging you to come back?

    0
  33. Alan perhaps made one of his my honest posts ever, for him. he openly is admitting that the reason the site is biased and doesn’t moderate fairly, is because ID is not science according to him, so that is the reason why he will censor some posts and allow others. So that ID can’t be discussed as science. He doesn’t want people like Nelson posting here, they make the atheists look too foolish.

    You are a very slimy person, fake retired admin.

    0
  34. Alan Fox,

    How’s the site volume/posting going since your return Alan? Did you notice it go up while you were away? That would be a fun little stat to show, wouldn’t it?

    More coincidence?

    0
  35. phoodoo: How’s the site volume/posting going since your return Alan? Did you notice it go up while you were away?

    Here’s an image of unique daily visitors for the last six months. I don’t think I should make the statistics plugin visible to all as it records and displays IP addresses (though doesn’t link them to individual posters). In case it’s not easy to read, look here.

    0

  36. phoodoo: Alan perhaps made one of his my honest posts ever, for him. he openly is admitting that the reason the site is biased and doesn’t moderate fairly, is because ID is not science according to him, so that is the reason why he will censor some posts and allow others. So that ID can’t be discussed as science. He doesn’t want people like Nelson posting here, they make the atheists look too foolish.

    You are a very slimy person, fake retired admin.

    That ID has no scientific merit should be easily refuted by pointing out that scientific merit. Paul Nelson is well known for making the point in 2004 that:

    Easily the biggest challenge facing the ID community is to develop a full-fledged theory of biological design. We don’t have such a theory right now, and that’s a problem. Without a theory, it’s very hard to know where to direct your research focus. Right now, we’ve got a bag of powerful intuitions, and a handful of notions such as ‘irreducible complexity’ and ‘specified complexity’-but, as yet, no general theory of biological design. link

    Nothing has changed in the fifteen years since Dr Nelson’s statement that I’m aware of. Anyway, this is not a moderation issue but please, if you or anyone can show any progress ID has made scientifically since 2004, post it in the thread “Swamidass vs. Nelson – trying to find a “Common Narrative with ID on MN”?”.

    0
  37. Alan Fox,

    So what it is showing is that in the last 180 days, this week is the lowest it has ever been. Gee, what a surprise.

    Alan Fox, the great destroyer of websites. You should offer your services out Alan. Anyone who wants to decrease their website traffic, just invite you to participate.

    Of all the people I have heard say they quit here, I reckon 95% are because of you.

    0
  38. Alan Fox:

    phoodoo:
    this week is the lowest it has ever been. Gee, what a surprise.

    Are we looking at the same figures?

    Yes, you are. Unfortunately, phoodoo has misread the caption, and thinks that the graph is reporting out weekly data, when the data is rather obviously daily.
    So when phoodoo notices that the final data point is lower than all the others, he crows “this week is the lowest it has ever been”.
    That (strangely low) final data point is for September 7th, phoodoo. It is lower than the others for the simple reason that September 7th is NOT OVER YET.
    This past week has in fact seen unusually high visit rates. Pidgeon chess.

    1+

Leave a Reply

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