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."
Patrick,
I know you were writing to Elizabeth. But I want to say your comment shows a lot of conscience.
As to:
A peanut gallery is for making fun and mocking others. I didn’t see a lot of the language one sees in a peanut gallery.
There is something of value to IDists and creationists, not just Barry’s natural adversaries here. There is some responsibility to show IDists and creationists there are some venues that are not wholesome, where they won’t get the facts straight.
Raising the issue of Armitage (an IDist), was grounds for suspendng my author privileges. Saying stuff on another blog TSZ, even a joking comment like “RDFish is a genius” is grounds for banning. This is not a venue that is healthy for anyone, not IDists, not creationists, not anyone. But did anyone at UD know this arbitrary policy was in place? No! They only learn of it now.
This thread wasn’t just for “skeptics” to poke fun at Barry’s administration policy, it was to give a chance for ID supporters to consider the integrity of their sources.
As an IDist, I was in constant fear of shattering the partly line. I figured I could get tossed for criticizing the ID use of the 2nd law, but I had supporters quietly thinking, “Sal is right, but better him to say it though, not me.” I stuck my neck out. I felt obligated to.
Then I thought I’d really get it for supporting Partrick Mathgrrl for showing no one could calculate CSI. I thought I’d get axed, but I didn’t. I had supporters in the background. But each dissention came at a price.
I thought I’d get axed for criticizing VJTorely and Branko Kouzulic. I almost did.
I then accidentally hung out to dry Jean-Claude Perez. I felt sorry about that. But the free flow of information showed the errors of his ID thesis. I got ever closer to getting the axe.
But to criticize “principles of right reason”. That was it!
Rather than Barry being straight, imho, I supposedly got author privileges axed for, “showing poor judgement” for posting about Armitage. Saying “RDFish is a genius” on TSZ not UD, was grounds for suspending commenting privileges.
This goes to show, IDists should have some reservation about venues that restrict the flow of scholarly criticism. This is not healthy.
Thus the discussion you characterize as a “peanut gallery” I see as trying to open the eyes of IDists and creationists about one of the blogs about ID.
Unfortunately, as you can see, the UD regulars sadly keep buying the partly line. Maybe someone in the ID camp will see UD for what it really is. In that sense, TSZ has ironically served the intelligent design community.
I want to say how much I appreciate the liberating atmosphere here at TSZ.
Regarding the thread about Arrington’s e-mails, beyond what was said in the e-mails, it should be apparent, I was constantly walking on eggshells in the UD venue as an author.
I was constantly worried I was going to get axed for merely showing dissent. “A=A infallible? Your’e a liar if you don’t agree, you are banned.” “You say RDFish is a genius, you are banned.” “You make one more post defending YEC, you are banned.” “You praise Gordon Davisson after he embarrasses Barry Arrington on the 2nd law, you are close to getting banned.”
What a suffocating environment. Makes me appreciate what I have here. So what if I’m criticized, at least I’m FREE, FREE to say what’s on my mind without fear of getting tossed.
I suppose being at UD for 10 years, I had such an investment there that it made it hard to leave, so I put up with the garbage.
For 10 years. That’s a lot of cracked eggs. All that time and no one suspected your true colours. That must have been hard on you Salvador. I’m sorry.
Thank you TSZ!
Its worse than that, Lizzie even compared Sal to a victim of sexual assault.
But I better not mention that she said that, or this post will be sent to guano.
Speedy recovery!
I did that. At ARN, at UD, and now here at TSZ.
And my latest example involved considering the integrity involved in exposing private email correspondence.
Your sole concern in this whole revelation.
I actually considered going there myself, but thought better of it. I did not want to insult women and actual victims of abuse by comparing their situation to Salvador’s.
It’s that integrity thingy.
That obviously bothers you. Too bad. My advice would be for you to get over it. I can’t get over it for you.
What do you mean Mung? I shouldn’t have to worry if dumb crap not worthy of a college freshman chemistry student is showcased as some great insight of ID, but I did worry.
I shouldn’t have to worry about offending Arrington when he says ignorant stuff about the 2nd law or mathematical logic.
I shouldn’t have to worry about getting tossed when I point out a mistake by VJTorley on neutral fixation rates.
I shouldn’t have to be worried about “Siding with Mathgrrl/Patrick” when she/he was showing how incapable the ID community is in computing CSI numbers.
I shouldn’t have to worry about getting tossed when Winston Ewert and I disagree about how much CSI is in 2000 fair coins ordered by a robot.
I shouldn’t have to worry about posting about Mark Armitage’s lawsuit merely because he is a YEC.
I shouldn’t have to worry that saying something at TSZ will get me tossed and labeled as a Quisling. As if, my sincere belief “RDFish is a genius” can’t be said without fear of reprisal.
etc.
That’s walking on eggshells. That’s what the thread on Barry’s e-mails really represents, not just the e-mails themselves.
I feel bad for you. If Lizzie did that, for example, I (and most others here I suspect) would be calling her out on it. But we all have different standards and agendas.
The Whine Cellar is here.
Today only, 20% discount on classic whines.
Selective!
Ah, we should have had a party at 100,000.
Last comment number I happened to notice was 99k+ about two days ago. We all sure have been busy bees in the last couple days.
Elizabeth, thankfully, has enough good sense not to publish private email correspondence.
As for Salvador’s complaint, Google clean hands jurisprudence.
That’s not the issue at all. Try and focus. I doubt Lizzie would publically promote a position and privately deny it. She has integrity. If we found it that was the case, we would hold her accountable and reevaluate our positions. Because we’re not drones.
Are you accusing me of indiscrimination?
Mung,
I’m just enjoying your non-responses. You’re a beautiful case study into the workings of an ID follower.
I take this back.
Elizabeth showed poor judgment in not only allowing the content of private email correspondence to be published on her site but also actively encouraged it.
A sad day indeed for TSZ.
Mung,
Mung, 2012:
It’s not that integrity thingy, Mungy.
Hey, did anyone else notice the new “Ignore Commenter” function? Thank you, whoever did the hard work of adding that feature! I love it!
If enough people decide to ignore a given commenter, does that commenter become a Member of the Banned?
I predict that ignore button will lead to some very odd consequences.
Already we have an instance of someone seeing an ignored comment because someone else quoted it.
But that’s OK, it reduces the temptation to engage. And the nice thing, I only get to see the takedown, not the setup. Highlight reels. Nice.
Tying oneself to the mast.
Exactly!
As I said this isn’t new to me. I’m familiar with this function from other sites. And it definitely kept one from completely imploding. One troll can take a whole site down if s/he pisses off enough regulars with enough regularity.
I just look at posts on the sidebar and only click on ones by people who have posted at least a few constructive things.
I’m not talking about whether I agree with them. I love disagreeing.
But it’s a waste of time to read stuff that’s just whining and complaining about how they are treated by moderators.
Well done admins. Thank you.
I feel sorry for the admins. How can they both ignore and administer Guano?
Perhaps to spare the gallant admins a few headaches now that the ignore button is working, and I can speak only for myself, there is a bit of a vicious circle I hope I can help you avoid.
If you guys guano an attack against me, it will just raise more noise and complaints about moderation which leads to more and more and more ….. unproductive discussions.
I’ve put some guys on my ignore list. I can’t see them. I don’t care what they say.
If their posts aren’t guanoed immediately there will be less food for them to make even more pointless discussions about. I really don’t mind a lighter touch at least as it pertains to me. I take no offense if you’re protecting other guys more than me. I don’t see the garbage, I don’t intend to respond to it.
If you feel you must guano some comments, maybe defer it a couple of days, and then clean up. It will be demoralizing to the willful violators to think they got away posting pages and pages and pages of stuff only to see it guanoed after all that effort.
Let’s see if the trolling just dies on its own.
Thanks again for conceiving and implementing this feature.
The Barry incident made things more volatile than usual, I suspect. We’ll be back to quibbling over definitions soon!
stcordova,
As I see it, the purpose of guano is not to protect the target, so much as to protect the conversation.
Having said that, I take your comment as a general request to “not guano comments directed at me (Sal)”.
This puts potential guano directed at you in the intersection of “Target requests post not be guanoed” and “Target perceived to be “visitor” “, which was a previously empty set, IIRC. It will be interesting to see how these two factors interact…
However, I think that your request that admins wait a few days before performing the “clean-up on aisle three” is pointless, under the “ancient bloody history” rule…
I do agree with you that the interminable meta-discussion is rather dull.
Oh crap! I just broke my own irony meter!
🙂
This is the opposite of what I think. The point of guanoing comments is simply to get them out of the thread, at the time. Once the thread has rolled over, there’s no point.
It’s not a punishment.. This seems hard to get across. There are rules for the main page, and the game is to try to discuss within those rules. If people don’t want to do that, they can go elsewhere, including other places on this site.
I honestly do not understand why people can’t just try to play by the rules. The aren’t onerous. The site is not compulsory. There are even places right here where you can not-play by them.
Just do eet.
They’ll play by the rules if they really really want to try. Some are willing to exert more effort than others.
What I suggested, only a suggestion, might help motivate some to care about the rules a little more. If they have doubt about whether they crossed the line because of lack of immediate feedback, that might make them a tad more careful about what they say.
I agree with that sentiment and I suspect people would have a lot less to say about posts being sent to Guano if they saw it being used that way.
Not sure if that gets us anywhere though.
What rule did this original post break Patrick. Now you can finally answer:
Ok, Patrick, you need an example of an argument with Lizzie that was sent to guano because of the argument it made (as if you couldn’t find yourself) Here:
What rule did this break Patrick?
What rule, explain now:
How about this one Patrick, is saying someone whined against the rules too? You asked for examples, now I have given them to you. Tell me the rule I broke:
Need another example Patrick? Tell me the rule I broke again?:
Hunh. I prefer closing my eyes, putting my hands over my ears, and yelling LA LA LA LA I CAN’T SEE OR HEAR YOU!! at the top of my lungs.
Different strokes, you know?
But you really have GOT to stop whining about this, petrushka! (I mean, even if your way IS the best, as I’m sure it must be.) You told us already. Twelve times now, I think.
Irony is a…
Hmmmmm.
Politically correct words fail me.
Elizabeth,
Something there is that doesn’t love a wall . . . .
phoodoo,
The foot soldier comment I didn’t see. It’s well into the gray area of the rules.
“Desperate” was clearly a typo where “disparate” was intended.
Calling another participant names, even by proxy, is against the rule of addressing the content of the post not the poster.
phoodoo,
Accusing Lizzie of playing games, particularly without evidence, is addressing the poster not the post.
Accusing Lizzie of creating this site as “revenge porn” violates both the address the post rule and the good faith rule.
phoodoo,
Accusing another participant of whining is addressing the poster, not the post.
Elizabeth,
With the latest “The War Against Barry A.”, TSZ is looking more and more like UD with posts focused on named individuals instead of ideas. As I noted earlier, I think that’s a bad direction and not aligned with the goals of the site.
Your house, your rules, of course, but I do hope you’ll consider my suggestions.
phoodoo,
On another thread you wrote:
I suggest you reconsider that, as well as how you behave here. You write comments that violate the rules, raise a big stink when they are moved to Guano, disrupt threads with complaints about moderation, and demand details of each moderation decision. That consumes a lot of other peoples’ time. It’s a form of trolling.
There’s a reason why a large percentage of the comments in Guano are yours. You can see that reason in the nearest mirror. Stop behaving abrasively and obnoxiously and the problem goes away.
Patrick,
If accusing someone of whining is against the rules, according to you, accusing me of behaving abusively and obnoxiously is also against the rules. You don’t follow your own rules.
I don’t need a lecture from someone like you to tell me how to write. You are just another version of Sal. You have no business being a moderator here. Lizzie giving you any seal of approval shows poor judgement.
I agree, and was about to do it anyway. Good to have your endorsement!
(I’ve already bumped some non-meta post to the top of the front page).
A few minutes of looking over threads and I came up with these non-guanoed posts:
Keiths:
1. Of course you do. You’re too lazy to do it yourself, just as you’re too lazy to learn how Weasel works or what cumulative selection is.
2. Like I said, you wrote your program without understanding the requirements. You were too lazy to study Weasel and too lazy to learn about cumulative selection, so you just jumped in and wrote a crap program that looks bizarre to people who actually understand the concepts.
3. Quit whining about how we aren’t doing your work for you.
4. Having failed to identify anything illegitimate about Weasel or its demonstration of the power of cumulative selection, you are now clumsily attempting, and failing, to snare your opponents in linguistic gotchas.
5. I think it’s because you realize you’ve lost another battle, and obfuscation seems like the only way to extricate yourself from your predicament.
6. Don’t be lazy. The information is out there. If you’re still confused after making an effort to study it, then bring your questions here and I’m sure people will help you out.
Richardthughes:
1. Like KF before, rejection comes before understanding
2. You’re not looking very good Mung, and I suspect KeithS will play this to make you look even worse.
3. Probably not. William, like Mung is a good foot soldier. doublethink comes easy. Winning is losing!
4. Still unphased by Barry publicly pushing a narrative he knows isn’t true? How does it feel to be part of that enterprise?
5. Mung is the most skeptical.
6. Phoodoo, why not take a break from your usual MO of “making shit up hoping it supports your worldview” why not, for a refreshing change, read a paper /. do some research?*
Cubist:
1. We are not required to forget when some Participant X has indulged in disingenuous argumentation, in quote-mining, in mousetrap-setting ‘gotcha!’ gambits, or any of the all-too-wide variety of rhetorical tactics whose deployment is indicative of a palpable absence of the good faith which TSZ requires, as a Rule Of The Game, a presumption of when composing a response to another participant’s text(s).
Hotshoe:
1. Phoodoo think Sal is a member of Chewbacca’s species, and of course calling Sal that would be guano-able, because everyone knows Chewbacca is big, dumb, and aggressive, so by implication, Sal must be big, dumb, and aggressive too. Whew, got it.
Well, that’s pretty sophisticated reasoning for phoodoo. I must say, I’m impressed!
ReciprocatingBill:
1. Both desperate and disparate. But I don’t think so. Barry once confided in me that his hair is thinning. His secret is safe with me.
2. He told me that, confidentially, he is a ranting blowhard.
Adapa:
1. You’re a fine one to whine about lack of transparency Sal.
2. I agree the peek into the dark crevasses of Barry’s mind is fascinating, The part with Sal whining about how was bullied, not so much so.
3. That’s nice. Now quit evading and answer the questions.
4. Please stop evading and answer the questions.
5. OK, you have no answers and were just doing your usual ad hoc BSing again. Very very Gallienesque.
6. OK so you cannot show how your questions are relevant so you are forced to act like your normal infant self. Very, very typical
7. Oh goody. Another thread by a non-scientist demonstrating his complete lack of understanding on evolutionary biology.
Sal had his turn, then Mung, then phoodoo. I guess Joe “tunie” Gallien is up next.
8. How about when a dozen people ask you to define your term “real code” and you scurry off and refuse to do it every time? Hypocrite much?
9. You completely failed to define what you meant by “real code”. It’s a dishonest and cowardly Creationist equivocation that you use all too frequently.
Glen Davidson:
1. It’s Christ’s love that Barry shows that will win out in the end.
Rumraket:
1. What a fucking lunatic
2. Allan, forget it mate. He needs them to be accidents, no reason to spoil his fun. It’s accidents. Can we move on now?
Allan Miller:
1. Bong! You’re hopeless! …. But for fuck’s sake try and understand the subject you critique.
Petrushka:
1. I can’t see any difference between FMM and phoodoo, except that one of them is literate.
OMagain:
1. It’s an interesting take on “Why did my book flop” I suppose. Original, at least.
2. Given that your outlook is “what is of most benefit to me?” it no doubt helps that you can think of the people you tread on as robots or sub-human.
3. You know that this is a clear symptom of a dissociative disorder, right? Get help.
4. They want to proclaim, not discuss.
Kantian Naturalist:
1. Not only a lack of understanding, but an inability to understand.
Elizabeth Liddle;
1. Well, take the ear plugs out then.
Robin:
1. Convinced/converted many BAs have you? Why do I doubt that you actual have any real idea how well your concepts work…