As the replacement Moderation page has developed the old bug so that permalinks no longer navigate to the appropriate comment, so here is yet another page for continuing discussion on moderating issues. The Rules can be found there so anyone with an issue should check that they are familiar with them.
The Skeptical Zone
"I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken."
Gregory,
You seem to be asserting that ‘intellect’ is a function of ‘profession’, Gregory. Do you not understand that is clearly fallacious?
Lots of folks here know what I do, I tell people proving the pass one simple test : don’t be a creepy fucking stalker. You’ll now understand why I’m not telling you.
Hang on, got to clean up a spill on isle 9.
Gregory,
I’m talking about a claim that Erik made in that thread. That makes it on topic.
He made a claim. He has to either explain it and support it or retract it. Any other response demonstrates lack of integrity and cowardice.
You forgot to stamp your feet when you said that.
What are you going to do, cry, stomp your feet, throw your computer against a wall? ARGGGGHHH!!!!! Patrick demands compliance online, as an atheist moderator in the name of TAMSZ! 😉
In my view, 1) Erik is under NO OBLIGATION to answer you, even the way you may imagine you want, and 2) he has already answered you (and your atheist unenlightened brethren) sufficiently. At the very least, you have been given food for thought and links for exploration that just possibly might help you learn something (if you are still open to learning) and to think ‘spiritually’ instead of simply positivistically as you have done so far.
And that’s your current persona, atheist ‘admin’ at TAMSZ, accusing, threatening, demanding, obliging people to have ‘integrity’ and ‘courage’ merely according to your atheist norms. Basically, you are a pathetically confused human being. BUT, there is still hope for you to change your contrarian ways, Patrick. 😉
Anger, Patrick suffers it now even more 🙁
Your nose grows longer every time you post here, right?
Gregory:
“It is Patrick who is refusing to engage in ‘good faith.’ Actually, he is engaging with ‘no faith’”
I have read his attempts to get Erik to defend a clearly stated position, and I also have noted Erik’s refusal to do so. The lack of good faith is not hard to locate.
“He is an atheist with no basis for morality”
Ah, so dishonesty is OK if you accept Jeezus, and asking one to defend the indefensible is “atheistic”. When discussion is categorized entirely along religious lines (accept Jeezus, no violations are possible; demand rational and coherent posts and you are “atheistic” and not deserving of civil responses), discourse is impossible. It resembles courts of law in some countries where the only RELEVANT “evidence” is who you know, and what actually happened is entirely beside the point.
I read this site to understand aspects of biology beyond my education. Which is tough when we have a group who find biology religiously unacceptable.
His last line in this post is straight out of the YEC playbook. That’s probably as clear as you are going to get.
Neil can see! It’s a miracle!
Hi admins.
Please honor my request to allow people to say anything they wish to say in this thread.
Posting of porn, malware, and doxxing excluded.
This is primarily an anti-Uncommon Descent blog; it is reactionary to several people here being banned at UD. It’s not a ‘biology education’ blog.
If you actually/neutrally wanted a biology education forum, you’d likely consider BioLogos also, who don’t “find biology religiously unacceptable”. But it’s an evangelical Christian forum, where most atheists don’t last long. Nevertheless, it provides ‘biology education’ with the aim of converting YECs to a theistic evolution/evolutionary creation position.
As an atheist/agnostic, Flint, you’d probably rather invest your time not receiving ‘biological education’ from theists who are competent or even leading teachers and researchers in biology, but only from other atheists, right? That’s the USAmerican ‘comfort zone’ you prefer, isn’t it?
Regarding your ‘dishonesty’ wonderings, no, I’m not a right-wing evangelical fundamentalist in the USA. I advocate a balanced science, philosophy, theology/worldview discourse. Sadly, very few posters here, amongst the mainly atheist/skeptic/agnostic crowd are ready for this.
Keep that attitude up and they’ll soon put you on the tills, like me! 🙂
There have been many excellent science articles at BioLogos. Thanks for reminding me as I used to pop in regularly to read them. Unfortunately the comment section too often fills up with voluminous and vacuous apologetics. It must be dispiriting for Denis Venema and other contributors. Karl Giberson moved on. Darrel Falk moved on. Have your commenting priviledges there been reinstated?
It has several functdions. That is one of them, but not its original function, nor, I would say, its primary function. It was originally conceived of as a place where I could try out the “good faith” rule. It’s actual launch was triggered by some UD discussions that started at a time when “News” was posting many posts a day, and ongoing discussions were getting so rapidly pushed off the front page that they became hard to follow. So I started this blog as a place where people could discuss things at a slower pace without being bombarded by a hail of “news”.
But it quickly acquired the function of being a place where people banned from UD could discuss topics raised at UD. I’m still sorry not more UD regulars are prepared to come over here. We had a few regular UD posters at the beginning, but it didn’t work out. I find the tarring (slander, really) of TSZ as a “sewer” pretty ironic, really – I think we are less tolerant of rudeness than UD – and it smacks to me of an excuse not to post here.
Which is why I appreciate the contributions from Gregory, Mung, fifth, William, frankie, Erik, et al, even though I often disagree with them.
But it’s hard to keep frustrations in check on all sides. Not impossible, but hard. I think we should all keep trying.
That’s basically the disconnect I’ve noticed here for well over a year:
“Of course the rules can be changed if they’re not working!”
“The rules aren’t working.”
“Oh, I get that; it’s obvious. But I have a better idea that doesn’t involve changing any of the rules that I came up with when I started this place. (I’m quite fond of them because they seemed to have an aura about them when I first wrote them down.) And anyhow, I have a better idea than messing with the rules. We could have another section of the site where there might or might not be any rules–or maybe some rules and not others–and nobody will know! I was thinking we might call it Sand Noyau Box Moderation Guano Land! What do you think?
“Awesome. Great idea! You’re the best”
ETA: BTW, I *DO* agree with the dumdebibs that Patrick has been spamming/trolling Erik for months now. He wanted an answer to a question Erik was too embarrassed or chicken to answer. This was obvious after about 10 or 20 tries. But Patrick kept on keeping on. That’s a poorer example of civil conversation than calling somebody a dumbfuck (especially when the person has repeated demonstrated publicly that s/she obviously IS a dumbfuck).
Both the good faith and ad hom rules are silly and unenforceable and they invite bias and special pleading. They are “fake objective.” They really have to go.
Does that mean that the place should have no rules about civil confab whatever? Not at all. You take a few admins you trust/like–people with the character and temperament to keep the place nice (and I personally think the mods you have were very well chosen. You could add a calm theist maybe, like FMM, to get the resident nitwit to STFU.) And then you trust these “elders” to keep your living room free of shitbirds.
If you want specific rules, you could specify a progressive discipline system, and maybe allow an appeal to a suspension or banning by a panel of one or three non-mods whom you also trust–or it could just be you. That’s it. Fixed.
I’d be happy to write these up for you, but…..
Walto wrote here:
What about Lizzie’s stated aim – to facilitate dialogue across a gulf of misunderstanding? It has to be worth a try, no?
ETA mis
walto,
I disagree (obviously). Erik is not participating in good faith. I intend to continue pointing that out as long as he continues to behave in that way. We currently have no options for dealing with such people other than to call them out on their bad behavior. I’m not giving him a pass.
I agree that those rules do not support the site’s goals as written, but I don’t think subjective judgement of the admins is the answer. That will just guarantee that the only discussions are about moderation.
The assume good faith rule needs to be changed to prevent people like Erik from hiding behind it while acting in bad faith.
The address the post not the poster rule seems to be okay, so long as it doesn’t prevent addressing bad behaviors of posters. Saying “Erik is a dishonest coward so don’t listen to him.” is an actual ad hominem that should be disallowed. Saying “Erik is demonstrating dishonest and cowardly behavior as shown by these examples…” should be allowed.
It would help to include the goals explicitly in the rules and make it clear that the rules are there to support the goals and should be interpreted in that light.
Huh? How in the world do you think that is so?
Based on what, do you make the claim that there is less tolerance for rudeness here? ??
Are you joking?? How so?
Because we have explicit rules about treating others as though they are posting in good faith, and we implement those rules semi-consistently by moving violating posts out o fthe thread.
Whereas at UD those posts remain, indeed such posts are posted by the site owner.
Elizabeth,
You make it seem as if accepting that someone is “posting in good faith”, is the only thing important to keep a conversation from being rude. That’s ridiculous on the face of it.
Calling someone silly playschool names, or attacking their worth as humans, or just pointless ad hominen garbage is fine, as long as you don’t question that someone really means what they say?
That makes no sense at all, and I mean that truly!
Patrick,
I’m sorry, Patrick., but it’s just trolling at this point. Your high dudgeon about good faith notwithstanding.
Quite right.
It’s had it’s try. There are better ways, as I’ve explained. (BTW, I love Patrick’s insistence that a post like “YOU ARE AN ASSHOLE!” does not violate the ad hom rule so long as it’s based on something that was previously said here. Great stuff!)
walto,
Trolling is an attempt to provoke other people into intemperate responses, preferably with as little effort on the part of the troll as possible.
I am asking questions with the goal of understanding Erik’s claim. That is not trolling.
I am open to suggestions on other means for holding Erik’s feet to the fire. I am not willing to let his deliberate bad faith behavior pass.
walto,
Point of clarification: My position is that “You are behaving in a cowardly and dishonest manner.” is an appropriate response if supported by objective evidence of such behavior. “You are an asshole” does not fall into this category.
Patrick,
Don’t you know the rudest claim you can make (and the biggest rule violation) is claiming others aren’t posting in good faith?
You could be banned.
No he couldn’t. At least not for that. Even if that was what he was doing.
If that’s not addressing the poster, I don’t know what would be.
Gregory, have I mentioned recently what a nitwit you are (as exemplified by many recent posts at this site)? If not, let me repeat that you are incredibly stupid (again, as quite clearly illustrated by your recent behavior).
phoodoo,
I can be ruder than that, when the spirit moves me (so to speak).
walto,
It’s addressing the poster’s observable behavior. It is not making a statement about the poster’s actual character, only about objective evidence.
Frankly, I think that putting abusers temporarily in moderation is an acceptable practice as long as it is transparent. I remember that Frankie was recently put in moderation for good reasons, and it was announced. Does WordPress have the option, when people are in moderation, to indicate that a comment has been made by X that is currently in moderation? This would allow people to see when the comments are made, allowing for better context if and when they are approved.
Haha that’s excellent. Not their “actual character.”
And when there’s objective evidence that somebody’s being an asshole or “is bugged” (see Elizabeth’s recent post about what’s bugging theists and phoodoo’s about what’s bugging atheists) we can say it–especially if we don’t mean it in an ad hom way!
This is (objectively) great stuff.
walto,
C’mon, walto, you’re usually more capable of understanding distinctions than this (even when I disagree with you). Calling someone an asshole says more about your view of that person than it does about the person. It’s simple name calling. I suppose you could provide an operational definition of an asshole and provide evidence demonstrating that a particular person meets that definition based on their behavior on this site, but given the baggage of the word some equivocation would be difficult to avoid.
Pointing out that someone is refusing to answer simple questions to clarify their claim about a supposedly historical event isn’t mere name calling. As Reciprocating Bill so eloquently explained, we are participating here within a set of shared rules and expectations. It is possible to objectively demonstrate when someone is not abiding by those rules. I contend there is little doubt that Erik is not participating in good faith, based on numerous observations that everyone can see.
This is where the rules need to change. When people are acting in opposition to the goals of the site, it shouldn’t be against the rules to call them on it.
Patrick, as you know, I have no problem at all with you “Pointing out that someone is refusing to answer simple questions” You were quite right. The issue is whether it is OK to repeat this charge 700 times. There’s no doubt that the claim hasn’t become false. What’s at issue is whether the site is improved or diminished by someone repeating the same comment 700 times–even if that comment is correct.
What if I just wrote “My name is Walter” 700 times on some thread? It would be true, but….it would still be spamming, no? It would make sense to warn me to cut it out, and then to make me do so if I absolutely refused to quit it.
walto,
What alternative do you suggest? Erik is demonstrably not participating in good faith. He is, in fact, behaving quite dishonestly. His behavior is in opposition to the goals of this site. Since we don’t have access to Dembski’s vise, the only option I see is to point out Erik’s unacceptable behavior for as long as it continues. He can end the issue at any time by either clarifying his claim or retracting it.
If you have a better solution, I’m quite amenable to considering it.
How about some actual evidence, instead of the subjective “I contend” and “everyone can see”?
My evidence for your lack of good faith:
– ask the same repetitive questions for weeks
– continue doing so even when they have been amply answered (well, at least you must admit I attempted to answer them, while you attempted no good will at all in return)
– raise the level of hostility up to threats
That’s spamming the forum that you are supposed to be moderating and aggravating the conflict when you are supposed to be alleviating it. Objectively, you lack the character for moderation.
Erik,
I offer as evidence the entire “The Varieties of Religious Language” thread where you have been transparently attempting to evade answering simple questions about your claim concerning a supposedly historical event.
You have made your lack of good faith absolutely clear in this comment:
If you won’t clarify and support your claim, you must retract it.
I ask because you have never answered.
You have never answered those questions and, as shown above, you have refused to do so explicitly.
That is an utter falsehood. I have never threatened you. Any hostility is in response to your failure to engage honestly.
No, that’s not letting someone hide behind the letter of the rules while violating the goals of the site. You have no business speaking of character — certainly not until you either clarify your claim or retract it.
No, Patrick, ‘you must’ strip naked, rub peanut butter over your face and run in the street screaming “I’m fighting theists!” 😉
Oh, wait, you probably do that already anyway.
Lizzie, are you really willing to tolerate these *DEMANDS*, as long as they come from fellow atheists?
You’re a chump, Patrick. You’ve got a single answer you want and because you’re not getting it, you’re throwing a spam repetitive tantrum. That’s a ‘mature’ atheist, apparently. 😉
You said I should not be participating here. This helps you to understand my position exactly how? How does it alleviate our conflict?
As to my “failure to engage honestly”, this is just bad faith again on your part. You have been doing your worst to evade the rules that you are supposed to be guarding.
Well, at least you’ve admitted showing hostility. That’s a start. You demonstrate no honesty, Patrick, only simple boring repetitive lack of understanding. Sad flat uninspiring angry arrogant human 🙁
Gregory,
And a happy holiday to you too, dear.
Erik has never answered any of my three simple questions in any way. In fact, he has explicitly refused to do so.
OK, I need to catch up here. Patrick, what are the three questions you think Erik has not answered?
Erik, if Patrick posts them, can you either answer them (for my benefit, even if you think you have already), or say why you think you should not?
Thanks both.
Erik,
That’s not a threat, it is my view of what would be honorable behavior on your part. If you won’t clarify your claim or retract it then your behavior is not aligned with the goals of this site. I’d much rather you do one of those, but if you won’t then you should have the decency to not participate until you are willing to do so in accordance with those goals.
You are refusing to answer simple questions to clarify your claim about a supposedly historical event and are tossing up all manner of objections and accusations in a transparent attempt to distract from that refusal. That is not honest behavior.
You have the ability to resolve this right now. Either clarify your claim or retract it.
Elizabeth,
Erik made this claim back in September:
He has reiterated it on several occasions with comments like this:
I have been trying to understand exactly what he means by that claim. To do so, I’ve asked him three questions:
1) When did the flood you claim happened occur?
2) Was the flood global? That is, did it cover all the planet simultaneously as described in the Bible?
3) Immediately after the flood were there only eight people alive on the entire planet?
To date Erik has failed to directly answer any of these.
Elizabeth,
For the record, I’m far less concerned about resolving this particular disagreement than I am with aligning the rules to support the goals of the site. I think most people here are on the same page with regard to building a forum for open and honest discussion, however heated it may occasionally become.
The problem I see at the moment is that it’s too easy for participants who don’t support the site goals to hide behind the rules, particularly that of assuming good faith. Hopefully we’ll see some interesting, workable suggestions as a result of this discussion.
Gregory,
the nitwit checks in again with a typically insipid remark.
Patrick,
maybe ask him another 700 times, Patrick. that’ll really show him!
walto,
Still waiting on some constructive suggestions, walto.
Patrick,
Amen.