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."
William J. Murray,
That was great William.
I was going to do something similar but it has become clear to me that Patrick is not even trying to pretend he is an impartial moderator. When he said accusing someone of whining is against the rules, its like he is intentionally saying, I don’t care I am going to do whatever I want. I think Patrick has never even read this forum before. I would wager that 70-80 percent of the posts here address aspects of the poster more than the post. But somehow he just never sees them.
Patrick has an agenda, and doesn’t care what anyone thinks, but I am surprised that Lizzie is Ok with this being the image this site has created.
Lizzie are you going to address this mockery of the rules that Patrick has proclaimed?
Or do you agree with him that this is the rules, this is how they are applied, and that the moderators are attempting to enforce this uniformly?
I think its time you go on record, if you don’t want your name smeared with Patricks.
Oh, c’mon, Patrick. Haven’t about half of petrushka’s recent posts been precisely that?
walto,
You predicted this Walto, and you were right.
phoodoo,
I did? Remind me!
walto,
I don’t know. If you think a comment violates the rules, please raise it here. I don’t know about the other admins but I don’t read every comment. I scroll through, read the topics I’m interested in, and look for indications of incipient flame wars (e.g. a number of comments by one person or between two people in a short period of time).
Please re-read Lizzie’s notes on Guano and speeding tickets. We don’t have enough people to do a perfect job. We can try to keep the signal/noise ratio as high as possible.
If you want perfect moderation, suggest a rule change that all comments start in Guano and only those that clearly pass the rules get moved out. It might slow down the conversations a bit, though.
Patrick,
I get that many guano-worthy posts will be missed, Patrick, and as I’ve said many times, I think the rules aren’t great and are particularly difficult to enforce.
But let me ask you this: Do you really believe you are even-handed in the arguably borderline violations that you act upon? I’m not saying you’re not, I’m just suggesting that with rules as subjective as these, I’d think it’d be pretty hard to be impartial. I doubt I could do it myself. If somebody regularly pooped all over my head, I’d think I might look for crimes in that direction. Only human to do so.
WJM:
FWIW, you’re mistaken about every detail of these two posts:
– The “desparate” in the first is me tweaking RTH for using “desperate” where he intended “disparate” (courtesy of his autocorrect). I wasn’t characterizing anyone as “desperate,” and neither was he.
– “Barry once confided in me that his hair is thinning. His secret is safe with me” is an obviously facetious observation that Barry’s attitudes are no secret.
“He told me that, confidentially, he is a ranting blowhard” was Glen Davidson, not me.
Eh. Nobody’s perfect. 😉
walto,
Good and fair questions. I try to be aware of my biases and will tend to Guano people I agree with more readily than those I do not. Ask Adapa for examples.
It is, of course, possible that I view phoodoo’s comments with a more jaundiced eye because s/he both comments prolifically and has on numerous occasions reposted comments that were sent to Guano. As I noted, in the threads I’m not reading in detail I look for signs of flame wars as I scroll through. When one or two people are dominating the thread, with multiple brief comments in a short period of time, odds are good the conversation has been derailed by rule violations.
Even if I were bending over backward to interpret phoodoo’s comments in the most charitable light, his/her high volume attracts attention while scanning that most other participants do not (Mung being one exception). Since phoodoo is also prone to violating the rules (speaking purely statistically), that is going to result in more of his/her posts going to Guano.
I will note that I’ve left a number of phoodoo’s comments in the “Is Guanoing Posts Indiscriminately More Ethical than Banning?” thread that arguably violate the rules. I am trying to err on the conservative side. If you think I’ve been too harsh, please provide specific examples.
The bottom line is that the rules aren’t that onerous. If anyone, including me and the other admins, violates them, the violating comment may go to Guano. It’s very easy to re-read what you write before hitting Post Comment to eliminate rule violations. Heck, it’ll probably improve your writing.
It certainly would mine. A lot of my posts would still be pretty bad though, I think. 🙁
I would consider it an honor to be reviled by an anti-vaxer. The more red-eyed hate, the better. I am not, of course, referring to any actual person. This is hypothetical.
What gets guano’ed?
Given general agreement that enforcement is stochastic, what phoodoo and WJM are doing is analogous to claiming that silver cars are less likely to get ticketed than red cars, then scanning the data to find the most egregious examples they can of silver cars not receiving tickets. This is called cherry-picking. They need to analyze a representative* sample of all four categories, red vs silver, ticketed vs not.
But reviewing WJM’s list reveals another problem, better illustrated by the sports refereeing analogy:
Partisan fans have a very strong tendency to conclude that the referee is biased against their team; many a time, I have watched a Rugby match where the ref is entirely unbiased, and overheard fans of both teams complain, sometimes rather vociferously, that the ref is obviously biased against them. Here’s the interesting thing: the erroneous perception of bias increases dramatically the more the fan lacks understanding of the Laws. It takes understanding to spot when a grey-area call goes in your team’s favor, and maturity to acknowledge the occurrence. It’s pretty entertaining to watch a fan jumping up and down screaming at an obviously correct call, just because they don’t understand the Law.
Between 9 and 11 out of the 14 commenters that WJM cites are not breaking the rules; he does not appear to understand the rules at all. Hence the perception of bias.
*technical term
My son’s soccer coach — when he [son] was about ten — said the way to get around bad refereeing is to score more goals.
I suspect the complaining team is likely to be the losing team.
I notice that for all the abuse heaped on Sal, he at least shoots on the goal.
From too far out, but shoots.
DNA_Jock,
I just went through WJM’s list and, judging somewhat harshly but without looking up the original comment for each excerpt, I find 14 that don’t violate the rules, 10 that may or may not depending on the context, and 11 that probably do.
Your hypothesis is somewhat supported.
I could see modifying the rules to make them clearer.
The main rule seems to be that you can’t question another poster’s sincerity.
That implies you could engage in all kinds of name calling without violating the rule.
This seems to have been broadened to encompass a prohibition against certain kinds of name calling. But not all kinds. That can lead to inconsistent moderation.
I could live with a ban on any pejorative reference to a poster beyond asserting they are wrong about a fact or incorrect in reasoning. Followed by evidence.
petrushka,
The rules could definitely be more clear (or reduced in number), but even as they stand it isn’t difficult to construct a comment that makes a good, even passionate argument without violating them.
I’ve pushed into the gray area a time or two myself, so I know the appeal. The problem that I see now is certain participants aren’t just trying to find out where Lizzie’s line is, they’re deliberately crossing it and complaining about bias when the rules are enforced.
Anyone who has something constructive or interesting to say can easily say it here without violating the rules.
There’s no inconsistency between our analyses, Patrick. I explicitly reported out the by-commentator results, rather than the by-comment results.
My choice of metric may have painted WJM as slightly more ignorant than your choice of metric, but without affecting the results significantly.
[turns cherry-picking irony meter back ON]
There is nothing worth saying that can’t be said here without risk of being moved to guano. Not a damn thing.
I do understand emotions, however, and I have a few moved posts. I just don’t complain.
petrushka,
Our two statements do not contradict each other.
Not surprising, since I was agreeing with you.
I was just emphasizing the point that there is no theistic or IDistic, or anti-establishment idea that cannot be expressed within the letter and spirit of the rules.
petrushka,
Sorry, not used to that. 😉
Then consider yourself banned. That’s what Barry’s methods would do.
We don’t follow those methods, so you are not actually banned. However, since you prefer Barry’s methods there is nothing that prevents you from acting as if you are banned.
Neil Rickert,
No I don’t have to consider myself banned, I can just consider to give you the kinds of contributions this site deserves. As William has already shown quite clearly (It is not hard to find), Patrick’s interpretation of the rules is full of shit. How many more examples of hypocrisy would be necessary to make it clear.
So he can go fuck himself. When others violate the rules, and do exactly what he says I did, then I can point out what a lying joke he and this site are. It just makes Barry’s way look more right all the time. I don’t need to contribute useful posts here, if this site is not useful. You want more Richard type posts, you will get them. You don’t deserve to be a moderator. Every opposition voice agrees.
Until Lizzie gets rid of Patrick, he can just eat more shit, I don’t care. Accusing someone of whining is against the rules! Go fuck yourself Patrick!
Stop whining. This is the war room, and we can fight in the war room.
petrushka,
You mean like all the people who couldn’t score goals at UD?
I guess Lizzie decided to buy Her own referees since she couldn’t follow the rules. I know Barry warned Her.
How much do you think Patrick costs?
That’s a pretty scurrilous accusation, phoodoo. For two reasons I’ll let it stand here. Lizzie has said that personal remarks are permissible in this thread as complaints about moderation would be difficult without them. And, frankly, remarks like these suggest you are trying to abuse the system of openness we cultivate here rather than raising any genuine concerns. I can’t think of another explanation for your bombardment of this site with complaints, other than to distract from the vacuity of ID and the attempts to control the debate about it at UD.
Alan Fox,
You don’t cultivate a system of openess, you cultivate a system where atheists can say whatever they want, and non-athesists are not allowed to respond to the accusations of others. That’s why I posted here. Because on any other thread you can say whatever you like, and if I responded you would simply remove the post. That is the history here.
Its funny you don’t seem to like rules at UD. if you would have just followed the rules there, then Lizzie wouldn’t have had to start her revenge porn here.
Point one: I don’t say whatever I like here. I’m as careful as I can be to stick to the aim of civil and open discourse.
Point two: comments that break the rules may be moved, they are not removed. The substantive part of any moved comment can be copied and reposted. (The original comment is also still visible after a click or two and whether a comment should have been moved can be queried in a dedicated thread – this one – as you are now doing.)
Alan Fox,
You accusing me of being scurrilous is scurrilous Alan. See the problem? Its not going away.
Next time Lizzie or you or Patrick is going to accuse William, or Mung or me of being scurrilous, or of wearing earplugs, or of being irrational, and if we reply that perhaps its you side that is wrong, you will just move the posts, and say it is us who broke the rules.
So screw you Alan, you are right, you haven’t changed. The evidence of hypocrisy is there.
Do tell, what rule did I break at UD to cause being banned as Alan Fox? What rule did I break as Aurelio Smith to merit a complete deletion of my posting record? Actually there is an Aurelio Smith thread here if you want to pursue that.
I actually feel a little sympathy for poor Barry. He’s chosen to nail his colours and reputation to a bogus concept (Intelligent Design) that even it’s most well-known (Dembski and Behe) proponents seem to have abandoned it. What can he do but try to game the system, like you seem to be doing here. You have to play the hand you have, I guess. Must be dispiriting though.
ETA missing word
Phoodoo, can you lay off the burtthurt now? Truly you must have one intense rash around your rectum. Dude, leave your computer now, take a nice cold glass of water and take a few days off.
Mais, non, monsieur I said your accusation was scurrilous. I did not say you were scurrilous.
Indeed. You find difficulty in the distinction between A) “that is a silly thing to say” and B) “you are silly”. A is not rule-breaking. B is.
It’s the price of trying to maintain a civil and open forum. I think putting up with you is worth it.
Alan Fox,
You obviously couldn’t follow the rules at UD. You were probably rude the same as you are here.
You would love to have been able to call me scurrilous on this thread, but delete my post wouldn’t you Alan? You just said as much. That must really erk you to not be able to wield your little delete power here, huh?
Alan Fox,
Well, its not rule breaking when you do it you mean. Its rule breaking when Willam and I do it though. That’s the point.
So your point is really really freaking stupid Alan. I am not saying you are of course, but boy is your post really fucking stupid.
I certainly didn’t adjust my posting style to be either more or less civil than I am here. I notice you can’t suggest what UD rule I might have broken. I certainly never called anyone names or indulged in profanity.
NEWS FLASH!! Alan has just declared that it is ok to call one’s post scurrilous or stupid, or idiotic, or moronic, or any other vitriol you can think of, as long as you make sure its the post you are talking about!
GREAT NEWS ALAN!. Thanks for clearing that up. Please tell Patrick!
By the way, yours was one of the stupidest fucking posts I have ever read in my life.
I love the new rules clarification!
phoodoo,
Well, I read what you write, phoodoo.
Which one and why?
Please make sure to tell Patrick about the new rules clarification Alan, I think he hasn’t gotten the memo.
I can’t wait to tell him how scurrilous his posts are.
Make sure you identify which comment and which statement you consider scurrilous and why. Repeated unsupported allegations would amount to spamming the site.
I honestly think this discussion has gone on long enough.
I will consider what people have said, and possibly rethink some of the rules over the next few weeks.
I have faith in the ability of the current admins to do our human best to take a conservative and disinterested (how I wish that word were in wider use!) approach to moderation, while acknowledging that our human best is short of perfect.
I hope that JohnnyB will have time in the new year to look in and do some adminning. If not, I will think of another way in which we could have a theist admin. It needs to be someone in sympathy with the goals of the site, and much as I have grown fond of our theist regulars, I’m not sure if any of them quite falls into that category.
(If necessary I could reconvert myself I guess. Needs must when the, oh, wait…)
But, bottom line is that, as with UD, this site belongs to one person, and, like Barry, I get to be king.
So benign (or whatever) dictatorship is what you are stuck with 🙂
I shall try not to be corrupted absolutely.
I do miss the narrower margins and containing boxes from the comments though.
I wonder if we can keep the Ignore facility but restore the boxes?
You could look at “Twenty Sixteen”. It’s previewable through the dashboard and seems just as minimalist as “Twenty Eleven” and not much different on adding the penguin image.
Other possibilities might be to try JetPack or Disqus though the reviews on both are mixed at best.
ETA comments display better for me on my phone now.
ETA2 Ooh no! Comments not so good in “Twenty Sixteen”!
It’s not urgent, but I do find the current layout both less pretty and less easy to read.
Narrow columns are good for text readability, which is why newspapers have them!
From the rules page
quote:
But the idea here is to provide a venue where people with very different priors can come to discover what common ground we share; what misunderstandings of other views we hold; and, having cleared away the straw men, find out where our real differences lie
end quote:
Are these the goals you refer to?
If so
1) What exactly makes you think that the present admins have these at heart but none of the theists do?
2) How is this assignment of motives not itself a violation of the rule to focus on the content of the post and not the perceived failings of the posters?
I’m not trying to be argumentative or disruptive I’m genuinely curious about how you came to your conclusions.
thanks in advance
peace
Citation needed! 🙂
Just a thought. There is plenty of show/hide or “spoiler alert” software. Blanking material (needs a “show” click to render it visible) rather than moving it to guano coupled to a “flag comment” or “alert admin” button might be another way of achieving your aims.
ETA oops
What do you mean by none? Have you been adversely affected by moderation? Have your posts been moved to guano? What about Erik? Some of mine have. I believe even Elizabeth has a post or two in guano. But seriously, have either you or Erik been guanoed significantly?
If not, why not? How are you different in your posting style from those who wind up in guano?
I haven’t participated much in the recent debates because I’m busy with the end of the semester and because I don’t really care. I have no serious objections to the moderation here.
I was on the fence about Guano but I’ve decided that I can live with it. If this were my playground I’d probably ban folks more than Lizzie dos. But, fact of the matter is, it’s not my playground and I understand her reasons for having the conditions for banning being so lax.
The “ignore commenter” function will change my experience of TSZ immeasurably, so thank you for that!
I agree that a theist admin would be nice, if TSZ can find one who shares the site goals. We have some Christians who come by once in a while and make enjoyable contributions to the site. Maybe one of them?