Moderation Issues (6)

Posted on by

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.

2,711 thoughts on “Moderation Issues (6)”

  1. keiths: ’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.

    I was.

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

    Thanks for the advice. It is not a reflex. Is there a post where Mung says he would chose to remain a moderator, his dream job, but that choice was unavailable under any circumstances to due to being irreversibly dismissed by Alan? Maybe , I did miss that. Since you were paying attention could you point it out?

  2. newton:

    Is there a post where Mung says he would chose to remain a moderator, his dream job, but that choice was unavailable under any circumstances to due to being irreversibly dismissed by Alan?

    As if that were the issue.

    This is about Alan’s lies, newton:

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

    My response:

    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.

  10. More weirdness.

    I had to login over an insecure connection. I am using Firefox. Anyone else having this problem?

  11. Corneel,

    I last logged in several days ago. I don’t remember whether firefox flagged it as insecure.

    I did just retest, by initiating a login in a private window. And, indeed, it does seem to not be secure. I closed the private window without actually logging in.

  12. Corneel:
    More weirdness.

    I had to login over an insecure connection. I am using Firefox. Anyone else having this problem?

    I’m not sure what you mean.

    I use Chrome and it indicates the site is Not Secure beside the URL. But I think that just means that it is only http:, not https:.

    Chrome only warns one away when the site claims to be secure but Chrome detects issues with its certificate.

  13. BruceS: But I think that just means that it is only http:, not https:.

    Yes, that’s correct.

    I think it is saying that the url for submitting the form (login form) is using “http:” rather than “https:”.

  14. BruceS: I use Chrome and it indicates the site is Not Secure beside the URL. But I think that just means that it is only http:, not https:.

    Looks like you are right. That’s interesting. My browser never complained about that before.

    False alarm, I guess.

  15. Browsers have recently started complaining about http sites. Actually, they complained before, but not so vigorously.

  20. Thanks. Yeah, I looked several times for the …more… tag & didn’t see it. Where is it please?

  21. Gregory:
    Thanks. Yeah, I looked several times for the …more… tag & didn’t see it. Where is it please?

    I think you have to create a new block, then search for “more” in the block type settings.

  22. Neil Rickert,

    Yes, in edit mode, hover your mouse between blocks ,and you get the little “plus in a circle” icon; click on that and one of the top options is “…more…”

  23. I submitted a topic for possible publication.
    i think I go here. my title might be squeezing things. please help.
    Thanks to the moderators for help on this.
    robert Byers

  24. Robert Byers,

    It seems incomplete.

    You didn’t actually provide a title. You mention a video, but you do not provide a link to the video.

    I have moved it back to draft status, so that you can make changes. Or you can provide a link and suggested title here, if you want moderators to fix that for you.

  25. Neil Rickert:
    Robert Byers,

    It seems incomplete.

    You didn’t actually provide a title.You mention a video,but you do not provide a link to the video.

    I have moved it back to draft status, so that you can make changes.Or you can provide a link and suggested title here, if you want moderators to fix that for you.

    Yes I messed up the title. However the title is there in the first line unless weirdly it isn’t.
    I don’t know how to link. It was from a pandas thumb link and i thought no one would need to actually watch it. my summery good enough.
    So please try again unless still problems to be fixed.

  27. Hope not too quick or interfering with others threads. however i have submitted a thread for possible publication TSZ.
    The title is the first sentence.. I still am incompetent in writing these threads.
    including a send a note here on moderation issues. more sin maybe.
    yet please review and publish . thanks. Robert Byers.

  29. I have submitted a new post for possible publication. I may of messed up by putting it all in the heading. if so please just the heading is a obvious first sentence.
    Thanks . Robert Byers

  32. Neil Rickert:
    DNA_Jock,

    Noted.

    I think it should if its a vote. its a great idea that i bring up on lots of blogs or forums. In fact its a accurate conclusion whether creationism or evolutionism or anything is the right answer. Obviously there is nothing morally wrong with it.
    Saying people are of different species is no more dangerous then saying cats are in the great cat family. lions, cheetahs etc.
    Whether right or wrong.
    it was wordy but i had a lot to say. I hope its published. If not do i get a note or something somewhere.
    What a species is IS talked about . Why not let others prove humans are one species? might be interesting. In fact my case suggests deeper about why Darwins origin of species was wrong. I’m saying speciation is due to innate triggers in biology affecting a population that has a new environment. Not a selection on mutations of some indivuduals that START up a new population.
    I think its a great case that can be persuasive across all boundaries and intersting for humans as we look at ourselves.
    Let me know!

  33. Robert Byers: I think it should if its a vote.

    Elizabeth has already been clear, that she does not want racist posts.

    In fact its a accurate conclusion whether creationism or evolutionism or anything is the right answer.

    No, it isn’t. No credible biologist would agree with you. Even racist biologists would disagree with your thesis.

  35. Neil Rickert: Elizabeth has already been clear, that she does not want racist posts.

    No, it isn’t.No credible biologist would agree with you.Even racist biologists would disagree with your thesis.

    Well its a false accusation to say its racist and disappointing you discredit your intellectual judgement here.
    There is nothing racist about it and its true or i’m convinced its true.
    I don’t want racist things either.
    Its very silly. however I presume moderators here don’t get it.
    Its okay.

  36. Alan Fox:
    Neil Rickert,
    Agree with Neil and DNA_Jock, Robert. Your article isn’t fit for this site.

    Well it is fit for any site that is allowing interesting scientific ideas that touch on evolution/rejection of evolution.
    Even if it was wrong it would just be another wrong idea. it is not morally wrong or anything.
    Its silly. More then silly. I think its completely true and will become common in the future. If it was so wrong then let folks opine on it. Why censor?
    You guys really got this wrong. its fine with me if Elizabeth reads it.
    What items are wrong or evil??
    so such thing as species? or no such thing in humans? If so who says so?
    Anyways its okay. i bring this up lots of places with no problems though disagreement.
    Its a scientific hypothesis. Doesn’t matter.

  37. Robert Byers,

    “I don’t want racist things either.”

    Really? Then stop issuing racist things from your own mouth, Robert Byers. Do you know nothing about the plank in your own eye?

    You once wrote the following: “[I]ts from the Anglo American civilization that all worthy progress has come.”

    Do you now repudiate that civilisational racism or don’t you? If so, be welcome to state what is wrong with what you wrote here.

    Be a little self-critical about the WASP in you. Most people are already well ahead of you about that.

  39. Gregory:
    Robert Byers,

    Really? Then stop issuing racist things from your own mouth, Robert Byers. Do you know nothing about the plank in your own eye?

    You once wrote the following: “[I]ts from the Anglo American civilization that all worthy progress has come.”

    Do you now repudiate that civilisational racism or don’t you? If so, be welcome to state what is wrong with what you wrote here.

    Be a little self-critical about the WASP in you. Most people are already well ahead of you about that.

    Last post.
    thats hilarious your thoughts here!
    I repudiate that there is such a thing as civilizational racism!! Although points for coining the phrase if it becomes popular!
    WASP?! Sounds almost like a racist comment thing?? Some general presumption of negative traits thing!! Its okay as I deny there is such a thing as racism. So accuse those wASPS as you think they deserve if done in integrity.
    nuff said. last post.

  40. Robert Byers,

    WASP = White Anglo Saxon Protestant -> Know anyone like that, Robert? Gee really?

    “I deny there is such a thing as racism.”

    But of course you do, just as you deny being a racist. That’s apparently what the biblical literalistic YEC-god is telling you to believe.

    And meanwhile when you degrade and condescend towards fellow human beings with your language based on culture, race & ethnicity, indeed sounding like what most people identify as ‘racist’, do you think this reflects a loving God, or rather a troubled man?

    Sorry, it just sounds so un-Canadian & un-Christian the way you sometimes speak of others, particularly re: race & ethnicity, from your ‘safe space’ of ignorance & fear-mongering.

    Note to Robert: the above isn’t meant to be ‘hilarious’. It’s just an observation. Do please check your humility at the door when you enter it next time.

  41. i have submitted for possible publican a thread. the title is the first sentence in case i skrewed that up. it combines a biology idea with a biblical idea and so i hope folks might find it interesting.
    thanks Robert Byers

  42. Have the moderators considered if the rule about not accusing others of misleading applies to a couple of Tom’s latest posts?

    I enjoy the mathematical elements of the exchange between Eric and Tom, and I would like to see both feel that the can continue it here.

  44. DNA_Jock: Personally, I give a lot of leeway to comments that contain substantive content.

    I agree quano-ing is not appropriate.
    Assuming moderators agree there is a rule violation, in this case I think it would be appropriate to send a private message pointing that out and asking that it stop.

  45. Something seems to be broken. People are getting error messages when trying to post a comment.

    It looks as if administrators can post comments. And thread authors can post comments to their own threads. But anyone else gets an error message
    “There has been a critical error on your website.”

    I’m investigating. But I don’t really know what’s going on here. Maybe Alan could also take a look.

  47. Eric: Just checking

    Reinstalled WordPress. My sock can now comment. If anyone else is experiencing the problem, please try and comment to confirm issue solved (or not).

Leave a Reply