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.
keiths,
Repetition is not a convincing argument.
I’m not depending on repetition to make my point.
I don’t know WHY some people don’t want the pink dress?
The obvious conclusion must be the designer of the dress doesn’t exist?
Or, you’ve already forgotten the point you were trying to make? 😉
Oh goodie!
Don’t try to demote Alan now…
He needs something to do while in isolation…😊
You should meet my wife!
She makes you do stuff?
Cook?
Down Shep!
J-Mac,
If it were just the cooking, I could cope!
Why was this comment guanoed?
keiths,
What harm would it have done to leave that comment where it was?
If Elizabeth has empowered the moderator/admins to remove my ability to moderate/admin here (without her express approval) then there’s no doubt she has empowered them to change the rules as they see fit (without her express approval). So why haven’t they?
I have long expressed my own approval of such moves by the moderator/admins. The absence of any attempt to change the rules (at least not the written rules) speaks strongly of the moderator/admins own view of the site. They just don’t care. They are actually fans of the status-quo.
You (moderator/admins) can change it, so why don’t you?
Me too!
My wife is a radiologist – DI is a noisy environment – peace in the house is a must…😊
We all have several sets of headphones scattered around the house, basement, rec room, sunroom etc. All TVs had to be with bluetooth… lol
I will stop here.. (silent sigh) 🤗
Unanimity is elusive.
Indeed. But why is unanimity required? I certainly didn’t agree to having my moderator/admin capabilities revoked!
Surely two of you can get together and over-rule any dissent. Or does unanimity only work when it’s three versus one?
Here’s what I propose. You do what you think is right and wait and see if Alan and Neil remove you as moderator/admin. 🙂
Thank you for your suggestion, Mung, but I’d rather stick to working via rational discussion and the drive to consensus, rather than unilateral action and attempting to bully others by presenting them with faits accomplis.
That all sounds well and good, but how does it work out in practice?
The moderator/admins here take no action without the consensus of all the moderator/admins? We know that is false!
I was the one who was “bullied” by the majority and subjected to a “faits accomplis,” yet, remarkably, you don’t see it that way.
Is taking unilateral action against the rules for an moderator/admin?
When you agreed to be a moderator/admin at this site, did you agree to never take an action that all the other moderator/admins did not agree to?
Be bold DNA_Jock. Try to do something good for this site, even if Alan and Neil might disagree with you.
Let me set out what should be obvious to readers. You have agreed with every single action that Alan has taken. Because, you know, he never did anything without consensus.
Mung,
The irony is palpable, isn’t it?
Alan Fox,
And none of these comments are rule breaking. What the fuck is wrong with you Alan:
None of these you care about. But Gregory simple comment that you say is about moderation gets gets guanoed immediately.
Can it get any more ridiculous than that.
No, Mung,
The idea is to be willing to engage in an honest, rational discussion and engage in the drive to consensus.
I don’t always agree with either Alan or Neil, but they are always willing to honestly engage.
I am unconvinced that you even know what that looks like.
Was it ever in doubt? Yet DNA_Jock persists in defending the tyranny of the majority.
The mere suggestion that I was the one attempting a “faits accomplis” is utterly ludicrous and without foundation. Phantasmical.
You are simply not believable. Your assertion is that you have seen no evidence that I am capable of being either honest or reasonable.
Was that the basis for your objection to be me being given moderator/admin status? Who overruled your objection?
Once again, the insistence of unanimity among the admins is called in to question. Someone over-ruled DNA_Jock’s objections. Let’s hope it was not Elizabeth.
And DNA_Jock didn’t invite me to engage in a discussion. He voted to remove me because he had other things to do and didn’t want to come back to a site that I had taken control of while he was gone.
FFS
Who, really, is being dishonest?
A message from Alan to me:
In case there was any doubt as to who approved my appointment.
Did Elizabeth ever announce her approval of my appointment?
Another message from Alan to me:
My appointment was approved by Elizabeth. DNA_Jock abrogated to himself the authority to reverse that decision. Let’s just be honest about what actually took place.
There’s something deliciously satisfying about pointing out phoodoo’s incessant childish tantrums over moderation then having him respond with a childish tantrum over moderation. 😀
DNA_Jock,
If there was a poll, even on such a biased site as this one, Mung would still beat you in the integrity department Jock. Did you think if you quit as moderator one single person would want you back? Well I suppose adapa would, so you have that stain on you.
Moved here, because not a Guano offense, just a Moderation move. Will Alan Fox respond here, or dodge again?
Ah, yes. And you will of course stand on this same principle the next time swamidass (his registered member name at TSZ) comes here and diminutizes my name, right Alan Fox? ; )
Yup, that seems to be obvious to almost everyone else except for DNA_Jock. Kinda gotta wonder why he doesn’t see it that way?
Methinks DNA_Jock’s loosely defended “non-atheist” worldview, but very obvious anti-religious bent is showing through. The “honest” ones among the Admins are the apostate & the apatheist & himself. Not.
Any news on a follow-up yet to your suggestion, Alan? Or do you need unanimous approval from the other admins first?
Gregory,
If Jock, who has volunteered to be a moderator here, can’t possibly refrain from both showing a bias, but even worse he can’t even represent the concept of addresses posts rather than making his posts personal, why is he needed here at all? A moderators role is supposed to be to keep conversation focused on the discussions, not the individuals, but he can’t even do that himself . He can’t even abide by the rules he is supposed to follow. It’s like a drunk judge admonishing a defendant for being drunk.
I keep fellow admins informed when a situation needs prompt action.
I need to assure you of action in hypothetical situations? I confidently predict that will not arise but the rules would apply.
I haven’t pursued it. I suspect I may have time at the moment.
Alan Fox,
Every time swamidass comments here to me, he diminutizes my name. It is an intentional belittling strategy of his in communication with me. He does not “use member’s registered names” when he interacts with me here.
Now you are aware that your “confidence” in swamidass is, or at least may be, misplaced. Since that it is now noted, I will expect if he comes again, which he might, and addresses me here as previously, which he might, that you will stand on integrity and immediately, without need for any discussion, Guano his post because “the rules would apply.” Yes or No? Thank you for confirming this.
My name is Alan Fox. I have no problem if anyone shortens that to Alan. If names are altered to insult, that is a rule violation. If names are used that out members that is a violation that could result in a suspension.
Alan Fox,
Oh, goodness. It’s a simple question: Yes or No? You said “the rules would apply.” Would you apply them to swamidass: Yes or No?
I reject swamidass’ obviously intentional belittlement strategy of diminutizing my registered member name here at TSZ, which is not 2 names, like yours, only 1. Your user name is not in question or relevant in my request.
Will you Guano swamidass’ post if he doesn’t follow the rules as you just did to me, immediately and without need for discussion: Yes or No? I am asking you to simply enforce the rule to “use member’s registered names” for swamidass, should he ever post here in violation of it again. Will you or won’t you? Simple question.
Please don’t smarm this or try to further evade. If you value your own integrity, the answer should be simple.
I’m asking you to address my request directly and unequivocally. Swallow your pride and do the right thing. A one-word answer would suffice: Yes or No? Man up. Thank you.
Gregory,
Que sera, sera. I’m not going to indulge you in this. If a problem occurs in future it will be dealt with then.
Are you locked down with nothing better to do?
Swamidass will persuade him with kindness like he tries to persuade some Christians to follow him:
“Hey, I can’t defeat Behe and Tour, but I’m friends with atheists and homosexuals who have children… Why not follow me and my new voice”? 🤗
You are not the only one…😉
Alan Fox,
I’m simply asking for consistency in your moderation, instead of abusing what little power you have fallen into here at TSZ. Dignity, integrity & respect shouldn’t be too much to ask for. It’s unfortunate you’re playing the crooked trickster.
We’ll see how much your word means then. I suspect others, seeing how you have smarmed here, not answering directly instead of just easily saying “Yes,” will hold you to your own words. The issue is whether or not you actually care in your apatheism/atheism/religious numbness.
“Please use member’s registered names.” – Alan Fox (after sending the post in question to Guano)
Yes, even S. Joshua Swamidass should be asked to respect this rule & stop his intentional belittlement, aided by TSZ mods with no spine or consistency.
As best I can tell, the moderators all agree on this. But there remains the question of whether to grandfather the members who currently have different classification, in order to minimize disruption. My current preference would be to grandfather — that is, to allow them to keep current classification unless they abuse it.
Gregory,
I’ve reviewed Swamidass’s comments (all 129 of them) at TSZ and he addresses or refers to you as Greg rather than Gregory five times over a period of a year, most recently in January as far as I can see. If you don’t like being addressed as Greg, why didn’t you respond at the time saying so!
So I’m puzzled why it has suddenly become a hot issue with no prior mention.
I agree and the majority of “new authors” are not currently active here.
It certainly doesn’t look like “intentional belittlement” to me. If Swamidass happens to post again, happens to adress you or refer to you as Greg, presuming I am still in the land of the living, I will point out that you prefer not to be addressed by the diminutive. I predict he will heed that assiduously.
Alan Fox,
Thank you. “Please use member’s registered names” would suffice.
I hear that a lot of blogs see an increase visits…
How’s TSZ doping?
Mung, sarcastically:
Alan:
In other words, you act unilaterally and notify the other admins. Mung did exactly that and you ousted him. Why haven’t you ousted yourself, Alan?
keiths, We’ve been over this.