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."
Where’s that Ignore function, Alan?!??
(I have to admit that I’d feel freer if everyone here would ignore me. And I don’t just mean the way they do now. I mean, you know, semi-officially.)
I agree and have already moved it.
I do believe it is fitting to refer to UD as inanimate. It’s head was lopped off ten years ago, almost to the day. The corpse still trashes around, however.
How about exercising some personal responsibility?
I can understand why Phoodoo and Erik and Gregory and Mung can’t refrain from being crybabies. After all, there is no absolute moral code defining good manners.
What’s that? You want the rules to be clear, instead of opaque?
Can’t you just be happy with the fact that they exist, even if you don’t know quite what they are?
There is, but everybody is free to break it. If it would be impossible to break the moral code, there would be no bad manners distinguishable from good manners. And as a result someone might mistakenly think that e.g. Patrick has good manners.
What I was actually referring to was what I posted in the UD thread:
Not a single UD regular expressed any kind of criticism of Box’s photoshop, despite KF in that thread accusing ME of hypocrisy for having members here who also posted on a site in which [obvious] photoshops had been posted of KF and Denyses, and which, as it happened, I had expressed criticism of!
Quite extraordinary, and, yes, a disgrace.
A very good post by Timaeus in that thread, however.
That’s not true.
Looks like you’re having problems with definitions again, Erik.
Absolutely nothing there which refers to, depends on, or allies with “moral code”.
Whether Patrick, for example, has “good manners” is a completely separate question from whether he has “morals” (good or bad morals, either).
And Petrushka’s right, if there were an objective moral code which specifies good manners, then you, phoodoo, WJM et al would objectively be sinners. As it is, you’re just whiny babies. Which is merely bad manners, so that’s a relief. No damnation in sight.
+1
I wonder if you even noticed I was being critical of Waldo. I find the whining equally infantile on all sides. My impression is that Phoodoo and Mung and Gregory and Erik spend a higher percentage of their posts complaining about moderation than do most others. As for “my” side, I wish they would simply stop responding to the complaints. I wish I would, too.
Alan Fox,
Its pretty ironic Alan, that on a site which is going on and on about Barry deciding he didn’t like the postings of Sal, that here you all are now on an all out attack of posts you don’t like (a virtual war like attack) , moving posts with no explanation, expanding what is not allowed, telling William he now has to explain WHY Lizzies posts are irrational (as if he never has before) , all the while your side suddenly tries to distance itself from the militant skeptic movement, which MOST of the posters here are a part of through this website and others. I can remember a few posters a while back even bragging that they were a part of the guerrilla skeptic movement.
Once again, hypocrisy is the biggest tool of the skeptic.
Lizzie is totally out of control, I refuse to continue contributing content to your bullshit. I knew it wouldn’t take much for your colors to show here. I know will only post Richard like posts as a protest, until Lizzie does a better job explaining why she moved posts, including mine about Barry’s thoughts on Sal (shame on you Lizzie!)
phoodoo,
‘Richard like posts’. Excellent. Make sure you’ve read and understand the source material before you post. Don’t motive-munger or make up things you’d like to be true. Make fun of KeithS. Hug Walto. Check out hotshoe when she’s not looking. encourage Sal. I look forward to your big improvement.
petrushka,
Just because it’s guanoed doesn’t make it false..
I would exercise my personal responsibility by putting several posters on ‘ignore’. You suggest here that it shows a greater quotient of personal responsibility to scroll with your mouse (or otherwise) or close your eyes at the appropriate moments. If you are correct about this and are also one of those highly responsible souls who choose the latter, more praise-worthy, personally responsible method of ignoring posters, I salute you! It certainly would be foolish to use either method on you or any of your posts!
I would say more, but I don’t want to keep you from staying abreast of all the literature on language since Verbal Behavior which is, apparently, all second rate stuff.
Three cheers for petrushka’s style of whining which is no doubt much superior, based on its source.
Admins, I’m curious–why was this post of Mung’s put into Guano? And, also, why was Gregory’s post–one of the most substantive and least personally obnoxious he’s ever made here–put into Guano? Thanks.
It would be a fine post if he could just refrain from declaring other people’s motives.
walto,
I don’t know which comment of Mung’s you’re referring to, but Gregory’s was Guano’d for this lovely excerpt:
“Address the content of the post, not the perceived failings of the poster. “
Well I’d probably agree this is one of the nicer things he’s said of me:
Some of the stuff he used to say of me at the ARN form in 2004-2005 was pretty hurtful at the time. But for some strange reason, eventually I started finding his insults entertaining. Maybe I developed a twisted sense of humor.
Not me, guv. I’ve just survived the most horrendous attack of man ‘flu in the history of men. I haven’t had my eye on the ball.
Who is the biggest tool is a matter that’s open to speculation.
Well, I’m sorry to hear that. Policy here is that the door will always remain open to you.
Sort of a motley pink with farmer’s tan?
I’m not a mind reader. Lizzie is not a mind reader. Neil and Patrick are not mind readers. If you sincerely have an objection to a moderating decision you need to provide a link to the comment you are objecting to.
Alan Fox,
I knew you were going to say that.
Alan Fox,
I did Alan. I have mentioned several of the posts to Lizzie, and she has refused to reply.
As such I have started my own post to discuss what I feel are the sordid and hypocritical tactics used on this site. I believe before all posters were supposed to be allowed to start new threads, but as I posted my new topic, it showed that it needs to be submitted for review before it can be posted.
Please see to it that it is released from moderation now, so that this can be discussed further.
Patrick,
How is the war going Patrick? How do you feel your side is doing?
Do you think your invasive deletions are accomplishing your stated goal of fighting for materialism?
phoodoo,
I’m not a fan of the war metaphor. The 10th anniversary of Dover is coming up and intelligent design creationism has been on the wane that whole time, so my side (which mostly consists of me) is pretty happy about that.
If you think I’ve Guano’d (not deleted) any comments that did not violate Lizzie’s not terribly onerous rules, please point them out and we can discuss them rationally in this thread. Well, I can. We’ll see how you do.
Patrick,
Well, clearly Barry’s metaphor was right.
I have already brought up the sending of several posts to guano and you or Lizzie have not replied as to why. Is your war tactic now to pretend I haven’t already demanded an explanation?
Now when are you going to start sending any posts insulting of Barry to guano? He has posted here before. Are you pretending you haven’t seen any insults of him yet? Is that is your claim, you are clearly being dishonest.
But did you know that he was going to say that in this universe.
Since it was requested by some here that a separate post be made about Barry’s e-mails, I made such a post. I suppose there was curiosity about how he really frames the culture war. I was obviously happy to oblige.
As I suggested in the thread about Barry’s e-mails, a sufficient but not necessary condition for the suspension of the thread (moving it to an unpublished state whereby the record of comments is kept, but not visible to the public), is if Barry shows up at TSZ and says something to the effect, “I did write those e-mails, but can you please delete this discsussion.” It would seem a reasonable thing to do.
Of course nothing is stopping the Admins of TSZ from taking the thread from public view for other reasons. They can do that any time….
It’s an interesting question if Barry would be willing to even do this because it would be a tacit admission he’s counting on the moral fiber of TSZ to do so. That wouldn’t exactly agree with the narrative he’s promoting.
If that is done, something to the effect of “a thread was removed from public view at the request of Barry Arrington because it contained e-mails he wrote to Sal”.
And that will be the end of it at TSZ.
Testing the ‘ignore commentator’ function. goodbye Phoodoo!
What if I accidentally click the ignore button like I almost just did? I saw the name phoodoo in Rich’s post and I almost pressed ignore! That would have accidentally blocked Rich. I’d like to make sure I’m blocking the one I intend to block.
stcordova,
Yes, can you remind us how to undo an Ignore choice? Thanks. And thanks very much for this new function!
Thanks for the feedback.
Go to your dashboard and in the lefthand column you should see a gearwheel icon that remains unidentified when hovering over it. Click on it and you should see how to restore ignored commenters.
The plugin can be disabled if it is causing more annoyance than being useful.
ETA PS
It only works when logged in. Look at the site without logging in and all comments will be visible.
We seem to have broken tables, or is it just me?
Oh dear! What is the problem, exactly?
I never refuse to reply, phoodoo, but I don’t see all the posts that are here, as I’ve said.
You can always send me a PM if you want something specifically addressed.
Thanks. That’s easy, and NO, it’s not an annoyance at all!! How can an additional, optional, undoable app be an annoyance? It’s awesome!
The replies aren’t in their usual boxes (though still in the central white strip). I’ll try in chrome (in firefox right now)
Same in Chrome.
It seems to work OK, and the comment box appears, it’s just that the comments aren’t demarcated as they usually are.
Elizabeth,
That’s the ignore plugin. Easy enough to disable temporarily if you’d rather. I might be able to tinker with the CSS.
On the plus side, it seems to have given us comment numbering and identifies the thread author!
Now, the comments are numbered, which is nice. More useful than boxes, IMHO. That feature would be nice even without Ignore, but it’s crucial WITH that function, because it allows us to know if there have been intervening comments we can’t see.
I really love this upgrade….I’m now ignoring three people and even my sinuses are clearing up!
Actually, we shouldn’t get too excited about the numbering as it just counts the fifty comments on each displayed page.
It’s OK. I think I preferred the earlier appearances, but the ignore feature does seem to be a useful one.
I will say, here and now, that I won’t use it personally though. In case people were worried 🙂
Hmmm…doesn’t seem to have the desired effect. When I ignore someone, the thread renumbers sequentially. So there are no missing numbers indicating someone ignored has posted, nor are there placeholders for ignored posts.
Heh!
It does seem to be lowering my BP…
Ahh…never mind…
I’d probably put some people on “ignore,” if I weren’t already effectively ignoring them.
Glen Davidson
The “ignore” feature is broken. It does not allow me to ignore myself.
I don’t think it will work for me anyway. I usually read on my RSS reader, and I would need an ignore plugin there for ignore to work.
As for correcting mistakes with ignoring — if you go to the Dashboard, there is an entry for “Ignore comments”. Click on that, and you should be able to edit your ignore list.
Assuming you’re not joking – that’s a feature not a bug!
I just tried that. There’s a button to remove a user from the ignore list. It works pretty well. I temporarily ignored phoodoo (on my sock account where I am only a “Contributor”) to test this.
I do see another problem. This plugin is numbering the comments. But it only numbers the comments that are not ignored. So the comment number will change as you change your ignore list. Please don’t reference a comment by comment number. Instead, use the link provided with the posting time-date (or use the comment number from there). For example, this comment shows as “comment-100584” in the link.
Well, of course I was joking.
Elizabeth,
I would like to raise a point of order or two about the thread “Barry Arrington’s Bullying”.
First, this thread seems to violate the rule of “Do not use turn this site into as a peanut gallery for observing the antics on other boards.”
Second, one of the many things I despise about Uncommon Descent is the tendency to have threads focused on participants by name. This is often done by those with author privileges to leverage their attacks against those without such privileges. I find the technique distasteful as well as a violation of the spirit of “Address the content of the post, not the perceived failings of the poster.”
I request that you reconsider whether that thread is appropriate here. If you happen to agree with me that it is not, I suggest disallowing new comments but leaving it as an example of a mistake we don’t want to make again.