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+

1,654 thoughts on “Moderation Issues (6)

  1. Flint: Over time, I have sensed somewhat of a pattern, that people with what I consider skewed and strongly held views do not willingly tolerate disagreement. We know that this happens at UD, where creationists WANT an echo chamber. But I’ve seen the same thing occurring at sites promoting, for example, climate change denial, white supremacy, etc. Long ago there was a site discussing the potential problems with y2k, which soon devolved into (or was moderated into) a place where if you didn’t agree the sky would fall, you were summarily booted out.

    Yes, I agree. The thing is , only one person ,over many years, has been booted out here, and even he was allowed to return under a new name. This is a place where there is a dedicated place to heap scorn on the moderators, that the posters have some sort of rights beyond the whimsy of the owner of the blog.

    I sense, perhaps dimly, that people in different camps are offended by matters central to their orientations — that moderators more concerned with civility are seen by the creationists as being anti-religion.

    Not very dimly, uneven moderation is the complaint, of course when you break the rules to make your point, it is hard to claim the high ground. The moderation has actually become more laid back lately which allows content rich posts more leeway than lazy insults.

    I was also booted out of UD at one point not because my posts were uncivil or lacked substance or hijacked threads, but because I failed to profess my belief in the One True Faith. Consider that Christians are about 85% of the American public, yet they complain loudest about religious discrimination and are most demanding of “freedom of religion”, which translates directly into a comfortable permission to exercise legal bigotry.

    It is the owner’s privilege to be as bigoted as they want. That is what make the moderation complaints here so strange, the fact there are posted moderation complaints.

    From these complaints I can’t tell if Alan is being arbitrary, choosing victims at random, or because they criticize him, or because of their religion, or for actual cause.

    My feeling is not arbitrarily, not religious or random, with cause. The thing is if you screw up , they just move you comment to guano where it is still visible, often with a link. The mildest of a wrist slap. Hardly the inquisition.

    .

    0
  2. newton:

    My feeling is not arbitrarily, not religious or random, with cause. The thing is if you screw up , they just move you comment to guano where it is still visible, often with a link. The mildest of a wrist slap. Hardly the inquisition.

    What I’m seeing, in light of this, is the complaint that religious believers’ posts are much more likely to be sent to guano than atheists’ posts, and perhaps for less egregious offenses as well. In other words, this may be a mild slap on the wrist, but there’s a disturbingly high negative religious correlation between atheists and wrist slappings. I wonder, perhaps I should sign up with a different name, adopt semi-deaf creationist positions, and see if my wrist is slapped more. You may see disciplining for cause, whereas phoodoo clearly sees it as religious bias.

    0
  3. Seems like a claim that can be tested. Theist’s posts guanoed more often.

    phoodoo, willing to generate the stats?

    I suppose able comes before that. Are you able? Do you computer?

    It would be a trivial task to determine the total post count of all posters, manually assign their “side” and then count the posts in guano.

    Up for it phoodoo? Or is that too much like actual work?

    0
  4. Flint,

    Whether these allegations are well founded or not, IF there is widespread agreement that they’re basically accurate, then some means must exist to remove moderators or else the forum suffers possible fatal losses of valued contributors.

    The charges are accurate, as you can see by inspecting the evidence for yourself.

    There’s also the fact that no one has ever stepped forward, in the aftermath of that fiasco, to defend Alan’s actions.
    Not even Alan himself.

    0
  5. keiths: There’s also the fact that no one has ever stepped forward, in the aftermath of that fiasco, to defend Alan’s actions.

    I don’t have a problem with Alan’s moderation. And the whole thing got old quite a long ago if you ask me. Time to move on, Keiths

    0
  6. dazz: I don’t have a problem with Alan’s moderation. And the whole thing got old quite a long ago if you ask me. Time to move on, Keiths

    Right, that is going to happen.

    0
  7. keiths:
    Flint,

    The charges are accurate, as you can see by inspecting the evidence for yourself.

    There’s also the fact that no one has ever stepped forward, in the aftermath of that fiasco, to defend Alan’s actions.Not even Alan himself.

    Do you think the moderation at this site biased against theists?

    0
  8. OMagain: Seems like a claim that can be tested. Theist’s posts guanoed more often.

    I would say yes, especially considering there are fewer theists than non religious.

    0
  9. dazz,

    I don’t have a problem with Alan’s moderation.

    Because if it doesn’t affect dazz, it isn’t a problem.

    And the whole thing got old quite a long ago if you ask me. Time to move on, Keiths

    I didn’t bring up the topic, dazz. But I will continue to speak out against censorship and moderator abuses. Those things are out of place at TSZ. Even if they don’t affect dazz.

    0
  10. keiths:
    dazz,

    Because if it doesn’t affect dazz, it isn’t a problem.

    I didn’t bring up the topic, dazz.But I will continue to speak out against censorship and moderator abuses.Those things are out of place at TSZ.Even if they don’t affect dazz.

    It’s doesn’t affect you anymore. And if it does, the only reason is that you just can’t let go. You used to post lots of interesting stuff here, but you’ve become a bad copy of phoodoo. All you do is rant

    1+
  11. dazz,

    It’s doesn’t affect you anymore.

    It didn’t affect me over the summer because Alan was absent. That should tell you something.

    0
  12. DNA_Jock:
    dazz,

    Thanks, Jock, but I can’t figure out which sectors belong to whom with a few exceptions. What’s your point exactly, please?

    Also it would be cool to have the ratios of guano’d / total posts, maybe that would be more informative

    ETA: I’m dumb, they’re in order

    0
  13. So. It seems that three posters account for more than half of all posts sent to guano. Through one eye, I see that two of those are theists, indicating a bias against theists. Through the other eye, I see that these are perhaps the three most abrasive contributors, so maybe that’s the answer. Thankfully, this provides us enough information to support any interpretation we find congenial.

    0
  14. dazz:

    Also it would be cool to have the ratios of guano’d / total posts, maybe that would be more informative

    It would provide a different sort of information, certainly. I think those most often guanoed are also those who post most prolifically.

    0
  15. Flint: It would provide a different sort of information, certainly. I think those most often guanoed are also those who post most prolifically.

    I think I might be in the top three in that chart 🙄

    0
  16. Flint,

    I’m still not sure because Alan’s personal animosity toward certain posters seems at least as explanatory as religious bias.

    Yes. Incompetence would be one thing. Abuses motivated by personal animosity are quite another, and Alan is a serial offender.

    And we haven’t even talked about the my ban or Mung’s ouster as moderator.

    But it’s all okay with dazz, who “doesn’t have a problem with it.”

    0
  17. Flint: Thankfully, this provides us enough information to support any interpretation we find congenial.

    And isn’t that what really matters? 😉
    Anyone trying to extract more from these data is over-concluding…
    The question is, which (if any) of the guano’ed posts should not have been. Back in 2015, I suggested that keiths could perform an exhaustive analysis; he declined.

    0
  18. Flint,

    Sounds like you just couldn’t follow the simple rules at UD. Just like Alan and Lizzie. Sounds like you just couldn’t discuss things civilly. Why were you so abrasive there?

    0
  19. phoodoo: How about ones that weren’t guanoed the first time they were written by atheists? Would that be a good place to start?

    No, it wouldn’t. I have already explained why.
    The main reason that you, phoodoo, view the moderation as unfair is that you don’t understand the rules. Case in point, you fail to distinguish between “this is untrue” and “you are lying”.

    0
  20. DNA_Jock,

    You see Flint, if Entropy writes, pull your head out of your ass, that is perfectly acceptable here, but if I write pull your head out of your ass, the EXACT same thing it is actually a comment about moderation (how do we know its a comment about moderation, well, because Jock says so)., so that’s not allowed. get it?

    Now you still want to defend the moderators here? You are a skeptic cheerleader aren’t you?

    What if I write “pull your dick out of Entropys mouth Jock”, is that about moderation or just a perfectly fine comment here? Just so we understand.

    0
  21. phoodoo:
    Flint,

    Sounds like you just couldn’t follow the simple rules at UD.Just like Alan and Lizzie.Sounds like you just couldn’t discuss things civilly.Why were you so abrasive there?

    It must have been my inarticulate and foul-mouthed persona. What else could it be?

    phoodoo:
    DNA_Jock,

    You see Flint, if Entropy writes, pull your head out of your ass, that is perfectly acceptable here, but if I write pull your head out of your ass, the EXACT same thing it is actually a comment about moderation (how do we know its a comment about moderation, well, because Jock says so)., so that’s not allowed.get it?

    Now you still want to defend the moderators here?You are a skeptic cheerleader aren’t you?

    What if I write “pull your dick out of Entropys mouth Jock”, is that about moderation or just a perfectly fine comment here?Just so we understand.

    You sound like there’s a competition going on to see whose language can be the most vile without poking the moderators hard enough to be guanoed. I’m not defending any moderator, I’m trying to encourage thoughtful posts addressing the topic of the thread. If biology is one of the common topics here, I’m more interested in evolution and genetics than in what some people want others to do with some of their body parts.

    While I don’t think you should be disciplined simply because all of your posts display attacks, mockery, and willful ignorance, I think we would all be better off (including you) if you applied your intelligence to the topics rather than to other posters. You can disagree with someone without gratuitous insults. Others do it all the time.

    0
  22. Flint,

    Right, it must be that you are just an abrasive person. Why couldn’t you control yourself.

    Flint: You can disagree with someone without gratuitous insults.

    Who are you telling this to? The same exact posts Flint. The same exact words, verbatim. You still can’t get it? The ones who made the gratuitous insults were not me. I was the one guanoed because Jock says when I quoted the other posters it is is NOT a gratuitous insult, when I write it, it is a discussion about moderation. I REPLIED to the gratuitous post. That was my infraction! My posts were guanoed because they were written by someone else. Its THAT stupid!

    I don’t think you are getting it.

    But you sound like you still are going to make excuses for them when you do.

    0
  23. phoodoo:
    DNA_Jock,

    You see Flint, if Entropy writes, pull your head out of your ass, that is perfectly acceptable here, but if I write pull your head out of your ass, the EXACT same thing it is actually a comment about moderation (how do we know its a comment about moderation, well, because Jock says so)., so that’s not allowed.get it?

    Now you still want to defend the moderators here?You are a skeptic cheerleader aren’t you?

    What if I write “pull your dick out of Entropys mouth Jock”, is that about moderation or just a perfectly fine comment here?Just so we understand.

    Why do the moderators here refuse to answer moderator questions? How are we to know how to use the site?

    Again Jock: What if I write “pull your dick out of Entropys mouth Jock”, is that about moderation or just a perfectly fine comment here?Just so we understand.

    What if Entropy writes the same same thing about Alan? Fine or a moderator comment. Does it matter who writes it?

    0
  24. My apologies: I did not respond earlier because I took your questions as being rhetorical, based on the fact that I had already explained my view.
    Once more unto the breach…
    The first rule is “Assume good faith”. Thus it is a black-and-white rule that commenters may not accuse other commenters of being deliberately misleading. Pointing out that other posters are wrong, have made statements that are untrue, etc, is allowed. From your comments, you do not seem to understand this critical distinction.
    Guano’ing is stochastic. For any given comment, there is a significant chance that it is not read by a moderator until it has become “ancient bloody history” and there would therefore be little advantage to guano’ing.
    There’s a handy-dandy discrete-choice modeling framework that describes what increases and decreases the probability that a comment will be guano’ed.

    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.

    Note that the most effective way to request a comment be guano’ed is to post on the moderation thread (preferably with a link to the offending comment), noting that you think a particular comment should be guano’ed. Stripping the comment of any substantive content it might have had, and re-posting it on a regular thread in order to make a point constitutes an attempt to discuss moderation on a non-moderation thread.

    As to the relative importance of the different factors, YMMV

    Interestingly, swear-words do not feature in the rules. There is no prohibition on profanity. You, for instance, seem to have something of a fixation on sexual assaults on homeless people. I have no idea why. If other commenters were to object, I expect I would view such language as contributing to a hostile environment and act accordingly. For now, it doesn’t factor.
    I do attach high importance to factors 5 and 6 above. Now, there is a challenge here, in that reasonable people may differ as to what constitutes substantive content, and unreasonable people may be unable to recognize it at all. I am quite confident that you, phoodoo, will never find my moderation equitable. I can live with that.

    0
  25. DNA_Jock,

    You didn’t understand my question. Let me try again:

    Is: “Jock, pull your dick out of Entropys mouth” and aceptable comment or not? Its a simple yes or no.

    You don’t have to consider hypotheticals Jock, I am telling you the exact phrase.

    Seems to me (and to pretty much anyone who isn’t you) that this is virtually the same as “pull your head out of your ass.” which apparently according to you is fine if someone writes it first, but not fine if repeated.

    Funny that.

    So, yes or no?

    0
  26. No, that comment would not be acceptable (on a regular thread).
    That phrase could be, however.

    0
  27. DNA_Jock: I am quite confident that you, phoodoo, will never find my moderation equitable.

    You see Jock, I don’t have to make your moderation look completely arbitrary and ridiculous, all I have to do is show your results, and you make your self look foolish.

    “Pull your head out of your ass” with no other content, when written by Entropy, that’s ok. Me repeating what Entropy said, not ok.

    Me writing “Jock pull your dead out of Entropy’s mouth” also not acceptable. Because, well, because you are a hypocrite.

    So I guess I can still write “Pull your head out of Entropy’s ass.”

    Do you see what a ridiculous fool you are?

    0
  28. phoodoo: “Pull your head out of your ass” with no other content, when written by Entropy, that’s ok

    Wrong.
    That one should have been guano’ed, IMO.
    Please acquaint yourself with factor 6 above.
    Although you had been trolling pretty heavily when that happened.

    0
  29. DNA_Jock: Wrong.
    That one should have been guano’ed, IMO.

    Oh, but your hand suddenly seized up and prevented you from doing so? And it still is locked up. You had just enough strength to guano mine though, before you passed out from exertion…

    What a dishonest wanker you are.

    0
  30. phoodoo,

    You seem to have forgotten that it wasn’t me that guano’ed your stream-of-unconsciousness comments.
    Please acquaint yourself with factor 6 above.

    0
  31. phoodoo: Oh, but your hand suddenly seized up and prevented you from doing so?And it still is locked up.You had just enough strength to guano mine though, before you passed out from exertion…

    What a dishonest wanker you are.

    Is the total lack of shame the first requirement to become a moderator at TSZ?
    Is it why Mung was dismissed because he could feel human emotions, including shame?

    0
  32. DNA_Jock,

    Haha ha, it was You that Didn’t guano the comments that you are now saying were against the rules, after you defended the comments and said they weren’t against any rules, until I said OK, then I can say the same right? Now suddenly it’s against the rules, but you were too inept to do anything.

    Why are you a moderator?

    0
  33. J-Mac: …Mung was dismissed…

    Nobody dismissed Mung. He chose to withdraw as an admin. He responded to my email* and indicates he is fine but is unlikely to return to TSZ unless Lizzie does.

    ETA Just to clarify, I mentioned in a comment I would drop Mung a line passing on good wishes of TSZ members who were missing him.

    0
  34. Alan Fox:

    Nobody dismissed Mung. He chose to withdraw as an admin.

    Liar.

    You removed Mung as moderator (a mere eight minutes after he had undone one of your long-standing moderator abuses), and the other moderators prevented him from being reinstated.

    0
  35. keiths: You removed Mung as moderator (a mere eight minutes after he had undone one of your long-standing moderator abuses), and the other moderators prevented him from being reinstated.

    Did he have a choice to remain a moderator?

    0
  36. Don’t play dumb, newton.

    Mung did not have the option of remaining as moderator. Alan removed him, and Neil and Jock prevented him from being reinstated.

    0
  37. keiths:
    Mung did not have the option of remaining as moderator.Alan removed him, and Neil and Jock prevented him from being reinstated.

    Which was the right thing to do, considering that he was clearly out to troll the rest of the mods. Stop whining already

    0
  38. dazz,

    Alan chose to lie about the moderators’ actions, and I responded. Newton asked a question, and I responded.

    If you don’t like it, tell Alan to stop lying and newton to stop asking questions.

    Or better yet, be a grown-up and ignore the conversations you don’t want to be part of.

    0
  39. Alan Fox: Because he volunteered. It’s a thankless task and I appreciate his participation.

    His partcipation? You mean like when he goes on for five days about how saying pull your head out of your ass doesn’t violate any rules, and then on the sixth day says “oh yea, of course that break the rules” then does nothing? That kind of participation?

    Or do you prefer the participation where in the middle of a debate with Nonlin, where nonlin is being insulted constantly by the majority atheists here, he warns nonlin that he can’t point out Allan said something untrue? That kind of participation? Or like when Jock and you lectured Mung about doing his job, that kind of participation?

    Or do you like it when he mimics you, picking and choosing which rules to apply depending on if he likes the poster or not? That kind?

    You constantly whine about what a thankless job it is. You stop doing the job for three months, and not a single person misses you at all (except for maybe Jock-so you can protect each other) and you come back and say, oh its a terrible job..blah blah..

    Why are you are moderator you joke? Keiths is absolutely right about all the abuses you have participated in here. The site would be much better with out you. But the fear of losing your little power grab here just puts you into a cold sweat, you just can’t let go.

    Any complaints you had about being kicked out of UD for being uncivil and unable to follow the rules there pales in comparison to the outrageous way you are a moderator here.

    You are a person of poor character Alan. Maybe if you really would quit, then Mung can come back then and help run the place-since you hate it so much.

    0
  40. keiths: Mung did not have the option of remaining as moderator. Alan removed him, and Neil and Jock prevented him from being reinstated.

    So you say, what is your evidence?

    0
  41. keiths: Alan chose to lie about the moderators’ actions, and I responded. Newton asked a question, and I responded.

    It would have been more persuasive if you had provided stronger evidence than “ take my word for it”. I am sure you have the unambiguous smoking gun.

    0
  42. I’m not asking anyone to take my word for it. The evidence is in this very thread, and you (newton) were there when it all came to light.

    If you had spent less time reflexively defending the moderators and more time paying attention to the facts, you would know that.

    Here’s where it began.

    0

Leave a Reply

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