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."
DNA_Jock,
Indeed. The facts are there for anyone to see. Erik made a claim about a supposedly historical event. Erik has repeatedly, and in some cases explicitly, refused to answer questions about his claim. Erik then claims to have answered questions.
When the objective, empirical evidence is against him, it’s not surprising he’d rather ask for a vote.
Erik,
Not a phrase, an explicit claim about about a supposedly historical event.
Answer the questions or retract your claim.
Yes, indeed, Gregory. I am turning a blind eye to posts that are pages back in a discussion, and thus no longer interfering with it. I have an almost 100% utilititarian approach here.
If a post violates the rules and is current enough that it may destabilise the discussion, and I see it, then I move it. If it doesn’t or isn’t, I don’t.
But a bit of moderation according to the rules works a bit IMO. So that’s the way it will be.
Erik,
I’m trying to encourage you to support the goals of this site by engaging honestly and forthrightly. You are trying desperately to avoid clarifying your claim. There is certainly bad behavior here, but it’s entirely on your part. Answer the questions or retract your claim and the discussion can proceed.
What do you want me to do, KN, engage in apologetics in a den of atheists & agnostics? No thanks!
When I challenge IDism & YECism, (with rare exception, almost) no one acknowledges it (just like IDists don’t often confront the theistic opposition to their ideology). When I reject agnosticism & atheism, people here get mad. You are not suggesting a ‘middle ground’ exists here, are you, when you clearly favour the disenchanted, secular, atheist, empiricist, naturalist side?
THIS site, TAMSZ, is not the place for that. This is a den of apostasy & ignorance. Social fact. There’s no good reason to publish such ‘contributions’ here in the mud.
What kind of ‘just’ or ‘noble’ site do you think this is, KN, when Lizzie can’t even publically reprimand or request an obviously needed apology from one of her ‘admins’? Gimme a break! You could take a stand, but you haven’t. Typical.
Erik,
Here is the content of your referenced comment:
This is not an answer, it is an explicit refusal to answer. This has been pointed out multiple times, yet you keep claiming that you have answered the simple questions about your claim. The evidence shows that you haven’t, you know that you haven’t but you keep claiming that you have. That is not honest behavior.
Mung,
Please provide any evidence that I have abused any privileges or retract your accusation.
It appears OldMung is in the ascendent. Too bad, NewMung seems like a decent enough guy.
God, what a slimy thing to write, Gregory. You with your underhanded allusion to her motivation, deliberately pointing out that you have the power to skirt the boundaries of what is guano-able whenever you wish … well, I guess I could congratulate you for finally growing up enough to restrain yourself from your typical creepy-stalkerish accusations, except that is creepy-stalkerish in a whole new fashion
You do realize that you are supposed to be a christian, don’t you? You aren’t supposed to be stabbing people in the back the way you do. Maybe you need to make a visit to your pastor or priest for refresher counseling on that “love thy neighbor” stuff.
Erik,
I am participating in that other thread just like anyone else here, not as an admin. My understanding the rules and goals of this site is demonstrably superior to yours because I am able to recognize that one should either clarify and support one’s claims or retract them. I suggest you learn that soon.
Then what do YOU want to do? Engage in this “den” only to slur, demean, stalk, and reprimand persons?
Go on, then, if that’s what YOU want, no one can stop you from typing away and hitting “post comment”.
Seems like you’d respect yourself a lot more if you chose something more worthwhile, though. I would, if I were you.
hotshoe_,
Who are you to presume who I am ‘supposed’ to be? A Baba Yaga USAmerican atheist making things up as she goes along? Not a trustworthy person.
Erik,
I value honesty. Decency. Courage (even the minimal amount required to answer questions about one’s claims in an online forum). Integrity. Honor.
That you and Gregory consider my having these values to be a character flaw says all that needs to be said about you.
Gregory,
I think it would be welcome for Erik to apologize for failing to clarify and support or retract his claim about a supposedly historical event. I think it would be welcome for Gregory to apologize for continuously trying to distract from Erik’s failure to do so and for transparently trying to shift the blame from the person behaving badly to the person calling out that bad behavior.
I don’t presume, Gregory.
I recollect that you self-identify as christian. Of course, at my withered advanced age with my enfeebled atheist brain, I could be recollecting wrong. (I do admit I’ve already forgotten what I had for breakfast yesterday.)
If I’m wrong about your affiliation, please do feel free to let everyone in on the truth of your religious identity. Or not, as you wish.
Elizabeth,
Understood. I maintain that this, combined with the rule about always assuming good faith, makes this site too welcoming to those who really are not participating in good faith. If someone is making a clearly false claim after repeatedly being shown that the claim is false, it is irrational not to conclude dishonesty.
Gregory,
He didn’t answer them at all, nor has he retracted his claim. That makes my questions pertinent.
Erik,
No, your refusal to clarify and support your claim or retract it, despite the goals of this site and your own claim to consider “playing by the rules” to be moral behavior, is what is disruptive to rational discussion.
Answer the questions or retract your claim and the discussion can proceed.
How it worked for me (on my old personal blog) was that I’d ask myself the question “would I be happy letting my mother read that comment?”
Absolutely no problem now as she died in January 2014 at the age of 93. In her prime, she was pretty unshockable and able to deliver a salty phrase when the moment demanded it.
walto,
I find your blaming the person pointing out bad behavior rather than the person behaving badly irrational.
ADMINS –
Looks like we’re having “invisible comments” trouble (again?).
The sidebar shows Patrick commenting in Moderation between Gregory and I, but I can’t see Patrick’s comments here on the page, and clicking on them doesn’t go to the comment.
I can see them in my dash, but can’t link to them from there.
Any ideas?
hotshoe_,
Not only your “enfeebled atheist brain”. You admit to intentionally being a “rude, mean, insulting ass.” This is certainly not what a ‘role model’ looks like for most people. 😛
I have not disclosed anything about my personal beliefs on this pitiful site other than to confirm that I am an Abrahamic theist. And TAMSZ admins and even its founder seem to do as much as they can, including not reprimanding rogue admins, to try to scare theists away. But this place is not scary to me, it is more of an agnostic joke. 😉
Except, I’m conscious of the fact that people who dissent from the majority view, theists, ID proponents, Creationists, are already thin on the ground here. If we are too welcoming and become less welcoming, are dissenters not likely to become yet thinner on the ground?
You think this? I’m live-and-let-live regarding theism. But if someone wants to talk about and promote it here, they are bound to get asked challenging questions.
hotshoe_,
Yes!
Something’s broken. 🙁
Gregory,
Pointing out that observed behavior meets the definitions of those terms is not ad hominem.
I think not. It is stochastic.
Things that increase vs. decrease the probability of guanoing:
1 Clearly breaks rules vs. may be interpreted as rule-breaking.
2 Guanoing requested vs. Target requests post not be guanoed
3 Author perceived to be “home” side vs. Author perceived to be “visitor”
4 Target perceived to be “visitor” vs. Target is an admin
5 Substantive content is low vs. Substantive content is high
6 Derailing active discussion vs. ancient bloody history.
As to the relative importance of the different factors, YMMV.
If Gregory and keiths can provide a consensus scoring of all 97,000+ comments, I will determine the co-efficients.
Discrete-choice modeling, it’s fun.
With respect, you are sounding a little too much KairosFocus and his “correctives”. I am sure this is not your intent, but it is how I read it.
Yup. It’s not consistent, but I think it’s even-handed. I don’t think we can hope for anything better than that.
And the random sample has a lot of power.
Alan Fox,
Why Alan, are you suggesting that “theists, ID proponents, Creationists” are more likely not to participate in good faith here? If not, my concern doesn’t cover them.
Yeah, I was wondering about that. Divine retribution?
Which no-one is stopping you from doing on this thread. Given that you went on to write
I think that you are quite aware of this, dipstick.
It’s funny, but that is a good description of Barry.
Acartia,
That’s a danger when the the righteous indignation is strong. Thanks for pointing it out.
I try to meditate before responding here and I’m quite prepared to be proven wrong if someone has evidence or an argument I haven’t considered. I hope that keeps me from KF behavior.
As Terry Pratchett said, “And what you might need them for was to tell you, as a friend, that you were beginning to cackle.” Do let me know, please.
AIUI Alan’s “Mom Rule” s for self-censorship.
DNA_Jock,
Oh, yes, I’m quite well aware, as probably are most people here, that ‘hotshoe’ is a “Baba Yaga USAmerican atheist making things up as she goes along” and that she is “not a trustworthy person”. Quite right.
I agree.
I’m happy with the existing level of moderation.
It’s like speeding tickets. Maybe I didn’t really “deserve” the one I actually got; that’s compensated for by the one I deserved which I didn’t get. I don’t have any reason for feeling specially vulnerable or invulnerable to enforcement. And although more people (including me, sometimes) should be ticketed in accordance with the law, knowing that the police might be around any random corner does tend to keep speeding offenses down to a dull roar. Which is probably better, on the whole, than too-strict enforcement, because that has other costs and is too disruptive to the flow of traffic.
Elizabeth,
Sadly, today is not the day I get evidence of a god or gods.
The comments I’ve entered are appearing out of order, at least in the Moderation Issues thread. I have one listed at 5:24 pm today that I see before yours at 5:20 pm (using a separate browser and not logged in). My machine is set to Eastern time, but that shouldn’t have any impact on the timestamp of the comments.
Elizabeth,
I think I see a clue. I’m responding by hitting the Reply link on the comment to which I’m replying. In the browser where I’m not logged in, those comments show up directly after the comment I’m respond to. It seems to be trying to thread the discussion.
See my comment above timestamped 5:32 pm:
I’ve entered this one using the Leave a Reply box at the bottom of the page. I’ll bet it comes out in the expected order.
Well, you’re certainly “aware” of things about me that even I’m not aware of myself! Congratulations on your psychic perception. You could make buckets of money with a talent like that!
I certainly commend it to others as a mental exercise before posting. And I think your list is pretty insightful. I do tend to hesitate moving a comment to guano when the bulk of the comment has good content and perhaps finishes with a sentence or two of frustration.
“Quote in reply” seems to work as expected, also.
So it’s just the “reply” link which puts them out of order?
Yes, I think I’ve even used the speeding ticket as an analogy myself.
In fact I like this so much I’m going to quote it in the Rules post. Hope you don’t mind!
Elizabeth,
Happy to help!
🙂
Thanks 🙂
Done.
Somebody is posting under the name “Gregory” with the apparently deliberate goal of making Gregory look bad.
And it is working. It does make Gregory look bad.
Since the page threading bug might prevent some of my recent comments being seen, here’s one that sums up most of what I’ve been saying about Gregory’s unfounded slurs:
Gregory,
I think it would be welcome for Erik to apologize for failing to clarify and support or retract his claim about a supposedly historical event. I think it would be welcome for Gregory to apologize for continuously trying to distract from Erik’s failure to do so and for transparently trying to shift the blame from the person behaving badly to the person calling out that bad behavior.
And one that sums up my responses to Erik:
Erik,
I value honesty. Decency. Courage (even the minimal amount required to answer questions about one’s claims in an online forum). Integrity. Honor.
That you and Gregory consider my having these values to be a character flaw says all that needs to be said about you.