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. DNA_Jock:
    Back on the subject of moderation: I will note that commenters who show a persistent pattern of trolling may find their commenting privileges restricted.
    In piam memoriam fundatrix nostrae has its limits, folks.

    Wouldn’t you call that banning, Newton?

    Or just “restricted”, it has such a nicer ring to it, eh?

    The atheist rat pack getting to decide who the trolls are? Yea, that’s a great idea, Jock. Remember when you said its not against the rules to tell other posters to fuck off? Take your advice.

  2. Alan Fox: I can’t speak for “a lot of people” but it seems to me needs, desires, wants are powerful emotions that can overrule our ability to think realistically and logically.

    Yea, because you think it is a genetic mutation, (which improves fitness) which makes people want to believe in religion. But you are just one of the unlucky, unfit ones who didn’t get the advantageous mutation.

    Life is so unfair to you. At least you have no one to blame, because, you know, bad genetics.

  3. Gregory: Yes, let’s get back to Moderation. Apatheists are pretty much the scummiest pretenders in the roost. Don’t care; do care; can’t say, but will insult. So banal.

    There are other clarifications here that could be made in Moderation or elsewhere for better communications.

    I will continue in sandbox if you wish

  5. phoodoo: Wouldn’t you call that banning, Newton?

    Censorship, not banning. The subject has his freedom of expression limited not curtailed . In your case ,it could be a de facto banning if the posts deemed offending are not moved to guano

    Or just “restricted”, it has such a nicer ring to it, eh?

    Your stylistic choices are restricted, so nicer and more accurate. On the plus side, think of all the complaining you can do in this thread since you are not banned.

    The atheist rat pack getting to decide who the trolls are?

    Theist rat packs do same.

    Yea, that’s a great idea, Jock.Remember when you said its not against the rules to tell other posters to fuck off?Take your advice.

    Telling someone to fuck off is not trolling, only doing that over and over and over is.

  6. phoodoo: The atheist rat pack getting to decide who the trolls are?

    Yes. I claim to be able to judge fairly accurately whether someone is contributing something worthwhile after having seen them spam the forum with stupid posts and threads for several years.

    And do you know what you can do with your opinion on that? That’s right, you remember. Lie down on your side, lift up your knee to your chest, and shove it into your arse.

  7. newton: Censorship, not banning.

    Banning, oh Heavens no old Chap. Banning would be totally against Lizzie’s rules, don’t you know?

    We are just censoring dear boy. Lizzie never said anything about that, now did she? Oh who can remember anyway? She was a guerrilla skeptic just like Alan, so I am sure she wouldn’t mind at’all!

  8. phoodoo: Banning, oh Heavens no old Chap. Banning would be totally against Lizzie’s rules, don’t you know?

    The evidence seems pretty clear that is correct. With one notable exception.

    We are just censoring dear boy.Lizzie never said anything about that, now did she?

    Yes she did, guano exists, an ignore option exists, a moderation thread exists. All are forms of controlling content. They are recognition of a fact of life, disruption is the preferred stylistic choice of some. And disruption is also a form of controlling content as it discourages some from participation.

    Oh who can remember anyway?She was a guerrilla skeptic just like Alan, so I am sure she wouldn’t mind at’all!

    You seemed confused, one could be skeptical of the practicality of a completely unmoderated ,unrestricted blog.

  9. newton,

    Why do you think Alan is so inconsistent in his application of the rules? Do you think it is accidental, that he is unaware that he ignores people attacking theists constantly on this thread, but when someone like nonlin posts this, suddenly Alan will say “Attack ideas not people.” Do you think Alan is just completely full of shit, or do you think he is just unaware?

    Well, that’s an offset to the center, right? AKA ‘regression to the mean’ which I specifically wanted to remove to see what happens in its absence. More importantly, I proved what I wanted to prove. If you want to show something else, be my guest.

    Corneel: I just won’t for the same reasons that you don’t want to calculate your regression to the mean: it’s a hassle without any clear benefit.

    So you just chose to be delusional. Good for you.

    Corneel: Yes, the “Darwinist” selection for sure: Differential survival and reproduction correlated with a phenotypic trait.

    Ditto.

    Corneel: Every individual in your spreadsheet has ONE (= 1) parent. A mommy and a daddy makes two. This is as basic as it gets, Nonlin.

    Nothing stops you from taking the average of the two parents. To not say anything of bacteria. Why are you such a xenophobe, misogynist, and bacteriophobe?

    This is worse than all the other 10,000 posts that Alan let’s go? I can’t find worse than this from Entropy or Adapa or Rumraket in 30 seconds of searching?

    Come on, even you know that’s just such nonsense. You think its not intentional?

    This is called moderating? Are you also so blind?

  11. phoodoo: I can’t find worse than this from Entropy or Adapa or Rumraket in 30 seconds of searching?

    I’m not even in the top 3? Dammit, I’m losing my touch

  12. Please, no talk of banning, censoring, or “restricting” J-Mac or others who are judged to be trolling. The moderators have shown repeatedly that they cannot be trusted with such powers.

    Apart from the bannable stuff, members should be able to write what they wish and to read what they wish, even if others don’t see the value in it.

    Like many of you, I find J-Mac’s stuff to be mostly useless with occasional exceptions. The solution isn’t to prevent him from posting it. Just scroll past it or use the Ignore button.

    The power should be placed in the readers’ hands, not in the moderators’.

  15. NB: also just submitted a post. Would now prefer to see it wait a few days, as there are already a few new ones. Didn’t see keiths new post in queue until after posting mine. So, please, he can go right ahead, continuing on the flowery welcome that Swamidass left for him here at TSZ to visit PS.

    My post is merely semantic, LOL. Communications focus. It can wait til at least Wednesday, while you clean things up. The pinned posts also sometimes get scientistically cliquish, though I do think Tom English’s posts here to EricMH are well worth being featured.

  19. Neil Rickert,

    Not sure what the lock is about. That’s happened before. I don’t usually keep editing after I send. Maybe there’s a set lock period after submitting? It is available to post whenever.

  20. Gregory: Not sure what the lock is about.

    I don’t really know.

    Just to be clear, this is for the post by keiths. Your post is not affected. But you suggested we hold off on that for now.

    If keiths is reading this, I suggest that he close the browser. That would probably release the lock. It is probably something handled by scripting (javascript).

  23. Alan Fox:
    Moved a comment to guano.

    Attack ideas not people.

    Hi Alan,

    The Nonlin post you moved to guano is a tad insulting, but no more insulting than many of his/her other ones. Thus: perhaps not deserving of guanoing.

    Nonlin is an irremediable imbecile, and her/his “answer” there is as devoid of understanding as all of his/her other replies, and if this was my blog I’d have banned the poor irrational idiot loooong ago, but I think you might have misinterpreted her/his attempt at humor by the end (?)

  25. newton,

    Really? You need evidence of all the posts Alan let’s slide from atheist posters here? Is your mind as incapable as Alan’s from seeing the blatant hypocrisy of his selective intrusions? That post of Nonlin’s is a blatant disregard of the rules? Is it void of content?

    How many worse examples do you need me to show you? Skeptics. What a joke.

  26. phoodoo: Why do you think Alan is so inconsistent in his application of the rules?

    So we are done with the subject of trolling being moderated?

    Why? That would depend on your point of view. In my experience the moderation here is the least onerous for posters.

    Do you think it is accidental, that he is unaware that he ignores people attacking theists constantly on this thread,

    Too bad you don’t ignore it or at least make the attempt to respond a bit more creatively. The ignore button was designed just for that purpose. And what about you, are any of your attacks ignored? Ever break the rules which you are upset Alan does not enforce?

    but when someone like nonlin posts this, suddenly Alan will say “Attack ideas not people.” Do you think Alan is just completely full of shit, or do you think he is just unaware?

    Is nonlin attacking people ? The answer is ,of course, yes. So whether he is singled out or not , he made a choice and he has to pay the horrible price of having his post moved.

    Nonlin says:
    “ Just curious: are there any other sites open to all opinions like TSZ? If not, then this is THE STRENGTH of this site. Any banning will lead to the death of TSZ.”

  27. keiths:

    with occasional exceptions…

    Entropy:

    Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhh!?

    Like when he links to a legitimate scientific paper.

    Whether he interprets it correctly is another matter.

  28. phoodoo: This is worse than all the other 10,000 posts that Alan let’s go? I can’t find worse than this from Entropy or Adapa or Rumraket in 30 seconds of searching?

    Or yours too maybe or J-mac?

    Come on, even you know that’s just such nonsense. You think its not intentional?

    I think you should be smarter and then it would not be an issue. Nope ,too hard. Rather talk about moderation.

    This is called moderating?

    For someone so forgiving of the designer’s use of pain and suffering to create ultimate good, you get so worked up about fairness when there is no real consequence to suffer. It all can’t be whipped cream, Phoodoo.

    Are you also so blind?

    Closer to not really giving a shit about moderation, as long as that atheist keiths doesn’t get his way…

    In the era of Trump, “ it doesn’t take much to see that the problems of three little people don’t amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world. Someday you’ll understand that.”

  29. phoodoo: Really? You need evidence of all the posts Alan let’s slide from atheist posters here? Is your mind as incapable as Alan’s from seeing the blatant hypocrisy of his selective intrusions? That post of Nonlin’s is a blatant disregard of the rules? Is it void of content?

    You may be right about that particular post, now what? You want the job keeping this site running? You have issues with the other moderators ,too. Implement keiths vision of no moderation?

    What is your solution, what would make you happy?

  30. keiths:
    Neil,

    Restoring my Author privileges would avoid this sort of problem in the future.

    So simple , what could go wrong?

  31. keiths, to Neil:

    Restoring my Author privileges would avoid this sort of problem in the future.

    newton:

    So simple , what could go wrong?

    It’s true that the mods can screw up the simplest of tasks, but I’d be prepared to coach them on restoring Author privileges.

  32. newton: Closer to not really giving a shit about moderation

    Then don’t post here on the moderation thread if you expect anyone to believe that.

    Not giving a shit, and not having anything worthwhile to say is not the same thing.

    You contribution is “so what.” Brilliant

  33. phoodoo: You contribution is “so what.” Brilliant

    Nonetheless it’s better than your consistently negative contributions. Or claims you make but won’t back up.

    newton: What is your solution, what would make you happy?

    Go on phoodoo, be constructive. What rules would you enforce so that it was whipped cream all the time for you?

  34. I think all OPs should follow the style of Keith’s latest: that is, at most a tl;dr in main OP text with author’s detailed views in an (ignorable) first post of the thread.

    Also: I like Tom’s posts, but do all three of them have to be featured and so make it harder to find new OPs? I’m sure Eric has noticed tham and made his decision about replying by now.

  35. Entropy,

    I see Corneel has made a similar point. I admit I didn’t spot the possibility of an attempt at humour. I’ll restore the comment.

  38. Gregory: The pinned posts also sometimes get scientistically cliquish, though I do think Tom English’s posts here to EricMH are well worth being featured.

    Thanks.

    BruceS: I like Tom’s posts, but do all three of them have to be featured and so make it harder to find new OPs? I’m sure Eric has noticed tham and made his decision about replying by now.

    Thanks. But there is a message in the appearance of the three posts at the top of the page, and it is not directed at Eric Holloway. People who are on the side of ID need to see that Eric is a big-talking crank, not an intellectual champion.

    I would not have featured “Questions for Eric Holloway…,” considering that it is copied in the appendix of “Nontechnical Recap.” However, I decided to go along with the admin’s decision through the weekend, when Eric usually posts.

    Admins: I ask that you now unpin all but the most recent of my posts. With the new header, it does not take up much space on the homepage.

  40. Tom English: eople who are on the side of ID need to see that Eric is a big-talking crank, not an intellectual champion.

    A noble goal, but I suspect most IDists won’t attempt to understand your math and logic, but will instead trust Eric’s claim of expertise over yours.

    Putting aside the equivocation in Eric’s claim of conservation of ASC that you point out, have you checked the math in his derivation of the inequality in equation 40? It seems to me that he does not prove it and instead just provides a special case where it holds. I think there are counter-examples, but if you are happy the inequality holds as a matter of math only, then I must be missing something obvious.

  44. J-Mac: I have an new OP awaiting moderation

    The system shows you as still editing it. So it cannot be published at present.

    If you don’t know that you are still editing, then maybe close your browser.

  45. BruceS: A noble goal, but I suspect most IDists won’t attempt to understand your math and logic, but will instead trust Eric’s claim of expertise over yours.

    I await your scientific anaysys and results.

  46. Tom English,

    “People who are on the side of ID need to see that Eric is a big-talking crank, not an intellectual champion.”

    What makes you think you are reaching them with what they “need to see”?

    It’s almost like something people who are quite personally invested in this conversation would be willing to pay for: “Did that creationist even READ what I sent to them (because if so, HOW could they still be so misinformed, gullible, etc.)?” A guarantee that they did receive and read it, might be worth a small fee, wouldn’t it?

  47. Just a suggestion. Could folks consider using sandbox as a general
    discussion thread. Or, better yet, post an OP.

  50. Tom English:
    Moderators:

    Please unpin “Nontechnical Recap.” I hope you’ll consider featuring it again if Eric Holloway returns to TSZ.

    Done. The OT noise was getting tedious.

Leave a Reply