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. Still can’t see my (allegedly) six unread messages. And can change my view from “all ” to “unread” messages.

    I think there are 72 messages in my inbox if that matters.

  2. walto:
    Still can’t see my (allegedly) six unread messages. And can change my view from “all ” to “unread” messages.

    My suspicion is it’s a glitch. I’ve sent you a message to see if that is visible to you.

    I think there are 72 messages in my inbox if that matters

    Reaching the max. no of messages would, I think, prevent new messages from reaching you. Other message systems notify the sender that a recipient’s mailbox is full.

    @ All

    If anyone is trying to PM walto, try resending.

  4. Alan Fox: I think there are 72 messages in my inbox if that matters

    Reaching the max. no of messages woul

    Going below 50 helped me send new PMs

  5. I got an announcement Dec 14 asking for a response, but I see no mechanism for making a response.

  6. J-Mac,
    Sure. I didn’t realise that others were reaching and surpassing the 50 messages limit. The potential problem (and this applies to the media files that folks upload) is they may build up in the database to exceed our allotted bandwidth, otherwise I’d lift the limit entirely.

    TLDR:
    delete your old unwanted messages and media files, folks!

  7. walto,

    No problem. Oddly the system wouldn’t allow me to reply directly to your PM to which I would have replied “seems best!” 🙂

  8. petrushka:
    I got an announcement Dec 14 asking for a response, but I see no mechanism for making a response.

    Ah, that was a test announcement from me after reinstalling. It just asks for a reply to confirm it was working. Another glitch to mention to the plugin author.

    ETA on checking, there is no reply option to announcements. I must remember in future to identify myself as sender and mention those wishing to reply need to send those replies via a new PM.

  9. Alan Fox:
    J-Mac,
    Sure. I didn’t realise that others were reaching and surpassing the 50 messages limit. The potential problem (and this applies to the media files that folks upload) is they may build up in the database to exceed our allotted bandwidth, otherwise I’d lift the limit entirely.

    TLDR:delete your old unwanted messages and media files, folks!

    👍😊

  11. Does anybody know how to attach a poll to the post? My short attention span is gettin in the way to figure it out… 🙂 It it were quantum, it’d probably would have been easier… lol

  12. J-Mac:
    Does anybody know how to attach a poll to the post? My short attention span is gettin in the way to figure it out… It it were quantum, it’d probably would have been easier… lol

    Anybody can help with a poll???

  16. I have submitted for possible publication a idea. The title is in blocks but I didn’t mean this or need it. just normal is fine.
    Well please review and hope its interesting for everyone.
    Thanks Robert Byers

  17. Can I propose a rule that titles be restricted to (say) 10 words?*** Waffly titles, and those pursuing half the argument before the post has even begun, make the sidebar a bit messy.

    *** Or fewer. My “On Why I Think Excessively Long Titles Are Best Avoided” could use an edit.

  18. Allan Miller: Can I propose a rule that titles be restricted to (say) 10 words?***

    It would be nice if people would practice that. But, human nature being what it is, they won’t.

    Look closely at the most recent thread. The short first paragraph was originally part of the title, but I split it off.

  21. Mods should probably remove the inappropriate comments or take down the poll.
    It was a bad idea…

    Thanks, Jmac

  22. Is it reasonable to acknowledge Journal club – Protein Space. Big, isn’t it? has run its course as the featured OP?

    Alan? Mods?

  27. I believe J-Mac’s allusion

    You can’t and that’s the reason why you, Neil and Jock, decided to censorship my OP on Lenski’s LTEE…

    is a reference to this thread, which Neil (with J-Mac’s consent) made a “rule free” thread.
    I did not approve of Neil’s choice, but I did consent 😉

    Quite how this constitutes “censorship” is beyond me.

  28. DNA_Jock: Quite how this constitutes “censorship” is beyond me.

    Relaxing the rules to allow sensible commenters to express their frustration at a daft OP is censorship like:

    War is Peace

    Freedom is Slavery

    Ignorance is Strength.

  31. DNA_Jock: I did not approve of Neil’s choice, but I did consent

    Why did you not approve Neil’s choice then?
    Another of your contradictory statements? 😉

  32. Sorry, J-Mac, I did not intend to confuse you.
    I did not approve of Neil’s decision. (I did not disapprove, either — I was thoroughly neutral). I thought that it would merely lead to a boring flame war, but otoh I could see where others might view the opportunity for “sensible commenters to express their frustration at a daft OP” as worth the risk. Again, how the hell this constitutes “censorship” is beyond ludicrous.
    I did consent, in that I was aware of the situation, I could have spoken up, I should have spoken up if I objected, and yet I remained silent.
    qui tacet consentire videtur si loqui debuisset ac potuisset
    I’m trolling a notorious pedant, is all.

  33. DNA_Jock: Sorry, J-Mac, I did not intend to confuse you.
    I did not approve of Neil’s decision. (I did not disapprove, either — I was thoroughly neutral)

    You said you’d consented to the moderation, which is not neutral stand…

  34. Regarding the featured article nobody is commenting for obvious reasons…
    Its glory has faded, has it not?😉

  35. I’ve had enough of this clown and ignoramus. Can we ban J-mac already? He contributes NOTHING of worth or consequence, anywhere. No sensible goal is served by having that lunatic continue to pollute threads around here with his inane gibberish.

  37. Rumraket:
    I’ve had enough of this clown and ignoramus. Can we ban J-mac already? He contributes NOTHING of worth or consequence, anywhere. No sensible goal is served by having that lunatic continue to pollute threads around here with his inane gibberish.

    Lol!
    And who might you be to make such a request?!
    I was going to take a break from TSZ, but since you insist, I will make myself available more now…
    Thanks for the motivation, coz I was getting tired of people like you who worship mindless theromo-vents or blots of lightning…

    You can blow up now! lol

    Have a nice life! That is if you can while looking for excuses to support your worldview… lol

  39. Rumraket:
    I’ve had enough of this clown and ignoramus. Can we ban J-mac already? He contributes NOTHING of worth or consequence, anywhere. No sensible goal is served by having that lunatic continue to pollute threads around here with his inane gibberish.

    I agree. As far as I’m concerned, him and Robert Byers make TSZ look bad and help drive away interesting and knowledgeable people who can’t be bothered to deal with their insipid nonsense and verbal abuse. But since we have agreed to tie our hands about banning, there is nothing at all that can be done except to leave TSZ ourselves.

  40. Kantian Naturalist: there is nothing at all that can be done except to leave TSZ ourselves.

    You can ignore them but not their OPs.
    Moderators should be able to refuse incoherent posts. If people dislike the moderators decisions on incoherence, they can post elsewhere.

    This is one case where history shows Philosophy Forums and PS get moderation right and LIzzie got it wrong.

  41. BruceS: You can ignore them but not their OPs.
    Moderators should be able to refuse incoherent posts. If people dislike the moderators decisions on incoherence, they can post elsewhere.

    This is one case where history shows Philosophy Forums and PS get moderation right and LIzzie got it wrong.

    Agreed. But unless we all agree to purchase TSZ from Lizzie, and so far no one wants to do that, we’re stuck with her rules — even though we could change them and she wouldn’t even notice.

  42. Kantian Naturalist: But since we have agreed to tie our hands about banning, there is nothing at all that can be done except to leave TSZ ourselves.

    Nobody likes their arguments exposed and looking like a 5 year old… lol
    That’s what happens when you support a world view that can’t defend itself…;-)
    You should have joined a feel good association for materialists instead of TSZ where there is already enough bias exposed by me and keiths…

  43. BruceS: You can ignore them but not their OPs.
    Moderators should be able to refuse incoherent posts.If people dislike the moderators decisions on incoherence, they can post elsewhere.

    This is one case where history shows Philosophy Forums and PS get moderation right and LIzzie got it wrong.

    Cry me a river…;-)

  44. I only have a few, well prepared OPs, on the ID inference…Nobody should miss those…
    I also have an experimental evidence on mutations and information loss… It’s revolutionary, no my words…Unless you guys want me to give this ammunition to DI?

    Other than that, I have no real interest continuing at TSZ, with people who are apparently published scientists, who make fools of themselves here by posting contradictory comments… When exposed, they blow up, or threaten to leave…

    This is what happen when you give ammunition to The Terminator 😉

  45. Kantian Naturalist: But unless we all agree to purchase TSZ from Lizzie, and so far no one wants to do that, we’re stuck with her rules — even though we could change them and she wouldn’t even notice.

    Lizzie was non-committal about letting someone else take on ownership (there’s just webspace rental involved – and a responsibility to safeguard the archive). I’ve had no contact with her since mid-last year when I floated the option most recently.

  47. Alan Fox: Lizzie was non-committal about letting someone else take on ownership (there’s just webspace rental involved – and a responsibility to safeguard the archive). I’ve had no contact with her since mid-last year when I floated the option most recently.

    I guess banning is justified then?
    Censorship is already allowed… So, what’s stopping you?

  48. Alan Fox:
    @ J-Mac

    You’re reinforcing the idea that you are here just to troll.

    “Troll” is a vague term, like natural selection. It can be responsible for everything and anything… (right emoji applied)

  49. J-Mac: I guess banning is justified then?

    I expect any bans or suspensions would be justified with an explanation given to the suspendee.

    Censorship is already allowed… So, what’s stopping you?

    I disagree that we censor. Lizzie has clarified that TSZ admins reserve the right to decide whether an OP is publishable. We will not publish (or will unpublish) text we deem potentially libellous, racist, inflammatory etc.

  50. J-Mac: “Troll” is a vague term, like natural selection.

    You make my point for me. I use the verb, as in a method of fishing where bait is dragged through open water to attract attention. Trolling is the antithesis of productive discussion.

Leave a Reply