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

2,646 thoughts on “Moderation Issues (6)

  1. walto: The difference is that hotshoe was a regular contributor for a long time. Lizzie never participated here much. (And not at all since I’ve been here.)

    Lizzie stopped participating here at the end of 2015. Prior to that she was an active participant with over 80 published OPs and nearly three thousand comments. I find 11 posts attributed to hotshoe_and just under two thousand comments. I very much appreciate both their contributions.

    0
  2. Alan Fox: Lizzie stopped participating here at the end of 2015. Prior to that she was an active participant with over 80 published OPs and nearly three thousand comments. I find 11 posts attributed to hotshoe_and just under two thousand comments. I very much appreciate both their contributions.

    Any confirmed conversations?😎

    0
  3. Alan Fox:

    BruceS suggested we could email absent members inviting them to participate again.I’d especially like to hear female voices here. On the other hand, I’ve tried that with Lizzie, so far without much success.

    I would not invite back these people until you start moderating OPs for coherence. Plus implement banning for anyone whose main purpose in commenting is to post insults.

    I am OK with moderators making collective judgement calls for both.

    Eliminating public moderation spats is also likely needed IMHO if you want to keep people you invite back.

    0
  4. BruceS: I would not invite back these people until you start moderating OPs for coherence.Plus implement banning for anyone whose main purpose in commenting is to postinsults.

    I am OK with moderators making collective judgement calls for both.

    Eliminating public moderation spats is also likely needed IMHO if you want to keep people you invite back.

    I agree with most of that. But I think moderating OPs for coherence is tricky. To do that, yet avoid bias, we would need a panel of reviewers. A decision on rejecting an OP should not be down to one moderator’s opinion.

    0
  5. Alan Fox,

    PS

    I’m doing a disservice to hotshoe_. She was previously registered as hotshoe and contributed another 800 comments under that registration.

    0
  6. It would take a wide variety of experts to edit some of the posts here for coherence. There’s some very complicated stuff fairly frequently.

    In any case, I think those three might be invited back simply because the asshats that drove them off are now gone. I mean, if they don’t want to come anyhow, they won’t, but it seems like relevant info.

    0
  7. walto:
    It would take a wide variety of experts to edit some of the posts here for coherence. There’s some very complicated stuff fairly frequently.

    In any case, I think those three might be invited back simply because the asshats that drove them off are now gone. I mean, if they don’t want to come anyhow, they won’t, but it seems like relevant info.

    Your are using a more subtle definition than I am. Mine is based on Neil’s joke earlier..

    PF does it now. That’s part of the reason it mostly keeps quality posters.

    0
  8. Neil Rickert: I agree with most of that.But I think moderating OPs for coherence is tricky.To do that, yet avoid bias, we would need a panel of reviewers.A decision on rejecting an OP should not be down to one moderator’s opinion.

    I agree. I trust the moderators as a collective decisoin. If the moderators agree unanimity is needed to reject, fine with me. If it slows a few OPs, fine too.

    This is one case where I am happy to convict a few of the innocent.

    Of course, there would be private negotiation with the poster for any flagged OPs.

    0
  9. BruceS: Eliminating public moderation spats is also likely needed IMHO if you want to keep people you invite back.

    Eliminating transparency in moderation, yeah right, that would really encourage more participation. On a skeptical site, with skeptical moderators, who routinely show that they are incapable of transcending their bias.

    Gee, I wonder why a partisan like you would be for that?

    0
  10. walto:
    Anyhow, what about putting the links at the top of the pages?

    If anyone can offer help with tweaking the relevant style sheet, that would be great.

    0
  11. On returning TSZ to its Golden age of Posters: I also think it would be best to install forum software before considering such invitations:

    0
  12. Does anyone have evidence that sites with heavier moderation, and no consequences or challenges to the moderators perform better or are more satisfying to their members?

    Seems to me, the primary reason for starting this site, was to get away from heavy handed moderation. Furthermore, the sites where moderators can do whatever they want seem to quickly lose posters if the moderators have no one to answer to.

    Look what is already happening to PS. As soon as they started getting crazy with their moderation, what are the public comments here about that site? Do you think its membership there is now growing, or is it already shrinking?

    I know I wouldn’t want to post there, if Swamidass can just do whatever he wants. Isn’t that what sort of caused the reduction of EvC forums? All they seem to have is the same core of ten posters, who all hold the same believes, with almost no new participation.

    I think the experiment of one sided, heavy moderation has been tried enough times now. It doesn’t appear to be a successful strategy for diverse opinions.

    Its a shame Alan doesn’t seem to get that, nor care why Lizzie says she started this site.

    0
  13. phoodoo:

    I know I wouldn’t want to post there, if Swamidass can just do whatever he wants.

    Exactly. Owners choose the values for their sites, posters decide whether or not those values match their own in deciding whether to post.

    Compare moderated versus unmoderated Reddit. Compare PF to TSZ.

    Forum owners can decide which set of values in each of the above cases is closer to their own for the type of sites they wish to pay for (or they can delegate that to moderators they choose).

    0
  14. BruceS: Compare moderated versus unmoderated Reddit.

    Ok, which is more popular?

    I have no idea what PF is, but what does the comparison tell you then?

    Lizzie made clear here objectives when she started this site. Alan wishes to ignore them. Lizzie gave up caring though. Lizzie said she didn’t want an echo chamber. Alan wants one.

    0
  15. phoodoo,

    I had a look at Pandas Thumb, which I never read. Low participation, and I couldn’t find even ONE opposing worldview to the atheist-materialist there. Not one. Do they even exist there?

    Correction-I see Robert Byers posts there. So there’s that.

    0
  16. phoodoo: Does anyone have evidence that sites with heavier moderation, and no consequences or challenges to the moderators perform better or are more satisfying to their members?

    Well moderated sites are the best, in my experience.

    Look what is already happening to PS. As soon as they started getting crazy with their moderation, what are the public comments here about that site? Do you think its membership there is now growing, or is it already shrinking?

    Membership is still growing at PS.

    Isn’t that what sort of caused the reduction of EvC forums?

    No, it isn’t. Changes at EvC are due to a change in creationist strategies.

    0
  17. I hate that we’re still discussing this same crapola, but as we are I’ll say again that I agree with Bruce about moderation and civility, and with phoodoo about transparency. You simply have the unpleasant stuff–like this post, e.g.,– in a separate forum. It doesn’t have to be “disappeared.”

    IMHO, Lizzie wanted both civility and transparency. The thing is she didn’t set up the rules correctly to deliver the civility.

    {And, Alan, if you ask me one more time for suggestions for rules changes, I swear I’ll book a flight, come over there and throttle you.}

    0
  18. New rule: Neil is allowed to close any threads where he doesn’t like the responses.

    Another new rule: The moderators are allowed to make up new rules anytime they want.

    Still more new rules: The moderators don’t have to give a damn about the supposed intentions for starting this site.

    More new Rules: Neil can lie about the reasons for new rules.

    0
  19. I didn’t get a chance to post this on Munging ID:

    Gregory: In short

    Lol

    Could we possibly have a separate category at TSZ for whiners and people with attention seeking behaviour?

    It seems that Mr. Long-winded first has gone out of his way to get banned at PS, so that he can come to TSZ and write pages of self-contradictory nonsense…

    As most probably know, I disagree with Swamidass on a lot of issues…I also disagree with the banning of Gregory…
    The best punishment for Gregory would be to have his posting rights at PS reinstated, so that we can get him off our backs here…If Swamidass doesn’t want to deal with the exposing of his pointless yammering, he can reinstate my rights for few days, and my kids will be glad to point out his nonsense… 😉

    0
  20. The irony. the thread Joshua started over at PS based on the one I started here was also shot down and closed to comments. Even hidden from view at one point.

    0
  21. Mung:
    The irony. the thread Joshua started over at PS based on the one I started here was also shot down and closed to comments. Even hidden from view at one point.

    Isn’t it more ironic that Neil has closed YOUR thread?

    Of course you could always overrule Neil. Unless Neil makes up another rule that you can’t.

    0
  22. Thanks for saving me the further time for defending myself. Joshua is not coming across as a good role model for LCMS. Well, but he knows that already.

    0
  23. If I were the spiteful sort I’d send Joshua’s post off to Guano for being off topic, lol.

    0
  24. Mung:
    If I were the spiteful sort I’d send Joshua’s post off to Guano for being off topic, lol.

    How about doing the same to Neil?

    Go on, take a stance for once.

    Is it your desire to allow Alan and Neil to make this site into whatever they want to make it into? Is that why you agreed to moderate? To be steamrolled over?

    0
  25. phoodoo: New rule: Neil is allowed to close any threads where he doesn’t like the responses.

    I closed that thread, as an alternative to moving several of the recent posts to guano.

    0
  26. phoodoo: Is it your desire to allow Alan and Neil to make this site into whatever they want to make it into?

    And DNA_Jock. And yes.

    0
  27. Neil Rickert: You would fit nicely in that category.

    You got the exposing of morons with attention seeking behavior mixed up…
    Just because I made you look like a first grade math teacher, at best, it doesn’t make my arguments wrong or intended for attention…

    You want attention?

    Write something that proves me wrong…You can begin with the category theory that made you look like Gregory when you were whinging how you have not looked at it for a long time or… well never… lol

    0
  28. Neil Rickert: I closed that thread, as an alternative to moving several of the recent posts to guano.

    Is that what Lizzie said she wanted this site to be?

    Where did you get that rule?

    0
  29. BruceS: I hope you will be a part of that process.

    He is a part of the process.

    His part is acquiescing to whatever they want.

    And being lectured by Jock.

    0
  30. Neil Rickert: I closed that thread, as an alternative to moving several of the recent posts to guano.

    It appears that most those comments still need to be moved to guano. Note: I am not LCMS (and never have been), and one Gregory [redacted by DNA_Jock] is continually complaining about mistreatment at PS, but does not want to reveal his handle at PS (because this would demonstrate he is making the whole thing up). TSZ is an important place of dialogue, and I hope that it and find away to keep bad actors for using it as platform for slander.

    As far as this pattern from [surname redacted – AF] of complaining about his treatment at PS, if it continues, I will clarify what his handle at PS is, so the fraudulent nature of his can be made clear. Gregory, consider this fair warning. Cut it out, or we will unmask your ID on PS. This is not a threat of doxing, but it would a response to your continued misrepresentation of your behavior on PS.

    0
  31. swamidass: . Cut it out, or we will unmask your ID on PS. This is not a threat of doxing, but it would a response to your continued misrepresentation of your behavior on PS.

    I’m not sure this is something we would like to be dealing with here…Perhaps Dr. Swamidass has a valid reason to act this way? I may not like his philosophy but I wouldn’t deliberately slander him because of that…

    0
  32. Mung: And DNA_Jock. And yes.

    I just don’t undersand why you are unable to see the “see-lying” at PS that Swamidass has exposed you about?
    https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/baseless-claims-by-mung/4184
    Beacuse Swamidass appears to be an honest Christian, due to his strong conviction in the Christ, he will allow you to defend your beliefs…otherwise, you know how it can go with the Tempelton funding… It can, or it should, go eitherway… 🙁

    0
  33. Hey Mung, Swamidass has just come on this site and threatened to dox someone. Are you going to do as usual and just lay down and do nothing?

    Yea, that’s what I figured.

    0
  34. “we will unmask your ID on PS. This is not a threat of doxing…” – Sanjay Joshua Swamidass

    Hmm, I guess the man doesn’t know what making a threat means either. = P

    The fact that Joshua is still standing behind Jon Garvey’s lie about what I wrote here, though he knows it is untrue, reveals a lot about the man.

    Swamidass now joins a small group of evangelical protestants, including Venema, who are so angry & distorted by their ambitious neo-creationist evangelicalism (he was raised by YECists) inside that they attack the man & try to ‘out’ him, instead of actually facing a legitimate challenge to their ideas.

    If Swamidass would agree to participate in a thread about ‘methodological naturalism’ here, instead of safely protected at his own site by people like Garvey who won’t repent from his lying character assassination, we could settle this rather quickly.

    Such a pity because there are indeed some good things Swamidass is doing (as I have told him) & he knows that the positions he now takes are actually quite similar to mine (given that I’ve been engaged on the science, philosophy & theology/worldview scene considerably longer than him or Garvey) because we met previously at BioLogos before he falsely accused them of racism.

    0
  35. Moved a post to guano.

    We don’t normally do that for the moderation thread. But I have to be concerned about possible libel/defamation suits against the site, so I am making an exception in this case.

    0
  36. “we will unmask your ID on PS. This is not a threat of doxing…” – Sanjay Joshua Swamidass

    Hmm, I guess the man doesn’t know what making a threat means either. = P

    The fact that Joshua is still standing behind Jon Garvey’s lie about what I wrote here, though he knows it is untrue, reveals a lot about the man.

    0
  37. “we will unmask your ID on PS.” – Sanjay Joshua Swamidass

    So this is not a threat in Neil Rickert’s view?

    0
  38. Gregory: So this is not a threat in Neil Rickert’s view?

    If you want to start a fight, do it somewhere else other than at TSZ.

    I am very close to putting you in moderation — so that posts (comments) will need approval.

    0

Leave a Reply

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