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."
In my book, that’s guano material.
“The post to which I am replying is one of the stupidest …” — that would be ok.
“Post —link-to-post— is one of the stupidest …” would also be okay.
But a generic “stupidest” that identifies the post only by the name of the poster is not much different from attacking the poster.
Pretrushka asks FMM:
Earlier, and elsewhere, Patrick asked Fifth,
Fifth responded,
Given that, it is worth noting that over the last year Fifth has had exactly one post moved to guano, out of what must be hundreds of posts.
Its content, addressed to Hotshoe, was,
Fifth, do you think your comment being quano’d reflects a bias against theists? Do you think your experience with your posts being sent to guano reflects a similar bias?
From where I sit, your experience demonstrates that a strongly theist position is treated fairly so long as the theist refrains from making personal attacks – which, laudably, you have.
I’ve been quano’d exactly once myself (for, “Frankie winds up. Meanwhile, Mung tiptoes away, grateful for that.”)
Evidence from discussions I have had with them and their actions.
The rules (apart from the porn/spam/outing/malware ones) only apply to discussions on the main page.
Clearly here, in Moderation Issues, it is important to be able to address people’s “perceived failings” – otherwise people would not be able to complain about failings by the moderators!
And it was not meant to be pejorative, and certainly not about theists. I feel I know Patrick, Alan, and Neil fairly well from online discussions, and I think they “get” my idea for TSZ, as does JohnnyB. Other people who might share my view are gpuccio and vjtorley. But from the theists here have said, I think they have a bit of a different idea. Which is fine.
But I still like my idea, so I’m trying to stick with it, at least for now.
btw, there are plenty of non-theists I would not ask to be admins either! It’s not a theism thing. It’s an approach-to-online-discussions thing.
Anyone know Peter Seebach? He’s a theist – but not an ID proponent. He’d be good.
I thought Johnnyb had already agreed.
Just a 2-cent comment on the new Ignore Commenter feature. I must say, I do like it, however it seems to allow me to skirt the rule to “park my priors”. Just sayin’…
Robin,
It’s even better now–park their priors.
Glen Davidson
He did, but he said he was busy right now.
+1
LOL!
IMHO One does not have to be actually sent to guano to be affected by the policy. Any more than a person has to be the direct victim of any racial discrimination to be adversely affected by it.
We are all worse off when the rules are applied unevenly.
Now I want to be clear in saying that I don’t necessarily think that a garden variety theist would necessarily do any better in this regard. We are all human after all. especially me.
Besides my comment was not about guano at all it was about ELs conviction that no one on the other side here shares her goals for this site. I wanted to know how she came to that broad conclusion,
peace
Well, did I answer satisfactorily? It’s certainly nothing to do with whether someone is a theist or not.
I need to think about it.
I for one think that all of the folks from my side that I’m aware of would of be interested in ….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……
I’m not sure why you would disagree. Like I said I will think on it
peace
I think you can do that here. If you want to give it a try, start a new topic to explore.
I am waiting for OMagain to finish making the game/tool shareable.
When he gets that done you can expect one or more attempts from me in that regard.
peace
I’m glad that you share the goals as laid out there. It’s more the manner of trying to achieve that where I am a bit picky.
As I said, it’s not a theist/non-theist thing. To be as candid as I can: my ideal moderation is completely utilitarian – not punitive at all. Post that break the rules are moved because I want the rules to be implemented (because that’s the point) but the idea of moving them is simply to get potential flashpoints moved while response are still live. Its not to punish the poster, and it’s not even a moral judgement on the poster, so it doesn’t matter if some are missed, once the moment is passed, and, as DNA_Jock pointed out – it doesn’t even have to be thorough or consistent as long as in general it’s not biased. And looking in Guano I don’t think it is. People whose posts end up in guano more than others include adapa, Gregory, hotshoe, phoodoo, Frankie/Joe, not because they are theists or atheists (there’s a scattering of both) but because they often break the rules!
I don’t want to have NO rule-implementation, otherwise I might as well not have rules at all, and I would like the core rule to be kept. I may rethink how to convey it.
But I do want that rule-implementation to be as non-retributive as it’s possible to be. That’s why I call them “game rules”. Breaking them isn’t immoral or evil or worthy of punishment – it’s just not part of the game. Like moving a knight in chess diagonally, or being offside in football (which I’ve never understood). The ref may miss the foul, or may blow the whistle, but once the moment has passed, it’s gone.
So I’m looking for admins who a) get that and b) have some experience of sorting out tech problems (and I’m so grateful to them for sorting out the hack that happened a while back)
Those three people happen to be non-theists as far as I know, plus JohnnyB who is a theist, but said he was short of time right now, but I hope will find time to join us next year.
I would say punitive is in the eye of the beholder.
It just seems to me that comments are more or less likely to end up in guano depending on what their authors claim to believe. This might be my own bias showing through but the impression is there none the less.
No offense is intended but don’t you find that to be a little strange?
The vast majority of the world claims to be theist but you only know one theist who you would trust in this capacity.
If I could offer some advice I’d suggest it might be a good idea to get out a little more 😉
peace
I don’t think anyone here is opposed to rules being clearly and unambiguously defined and published.
Making up the rules as you [admins] go along, not so much.
If you want to keep threads clear of off-topic stuff put it in the rules and enforce it. Be sure to define who gets to decide whether something is off topic or not.
Mung,
I’ve read your comment and I’m not sure if you expect a response.
fifth, to Lizzie:
Oh, the irony!
Funny how almost every theist thinks it’s “punitive” when they’re merely asked to behave in accord with the same standards applied to everyone.
The fact that you, and WJM, and Mung mostly, manage to comment without falling afoul of this allegedly “punitive” moderation proves conclusively that it’s not punitive at all.
We see the same issue writ large in democratic civil society. Theists need to see the phrase “happy holidays” as “War On Christmas!!!” because it feeds their perverted need to see themselves as persecuted. It’s not “punishment” for your boss to tell you to greet the customers with Happy Holidays because it’s more inclusive and equally fair to everyone, christians and non-christians alike.
You’re not persecuted. Neither are any of your fellow theists, or at least not merely because they are theists, but rather because they are loudmouth assholes who don’t choose to behave themselves.
And what does it say about you and your friends that you want to complain you aren’t allowed to behave badly? What kind of person wishes to get away with being the worst of the bunch without any sanctions whatsoever?
I would like to register my opposition to being forced to post “meta-issues” and/or “moderation issues” in the Moderation Issues thread This thread is as bad or worse than the Noyau thread and no one is required to post in Noyau.
If the rules are not going to be enforced in this thread then people ought not be forced to post in this thread.
You had to ask …
😉
The actions, Alan, have already been taken. I await their justification, either under the existing rules or via the publishing of new rules.
Of course it is your own bias. Not might be, IS.
Current guano page 35 comments as of about 9PM Dec 19:
petrushka — 3
Rumraket — 1
phoodoo — 12
RichardHughes — 6
Adapa — 2
hotshoe — 1
Alan Fox — 1
Patrick — 1
William J. Murray — 1
Elizabeth — 1
Mung — 3
Gregory — 3
So “both sides” are essentially tied as to numbers of comments moved, and essentially tied as to proportion of frequent commenters on either side who never break the rules, or at least never get their comments moved. That is, about half of self-identified theists who frequent here follow the rules everyday, and so do about half of self-identified non-theists everyday, while the other half sometimes or often slip up.
Yeah, bare numbers don’t tell the whole story. But it’s enough to prove that any perception of anti-theist “bias” is really a misperception based in the bias of the theist himself.
Hmm. Do you mean that you think people should be able to clutter up and derail main-page thread with complaints about moderation?
What’s your alternative to “being forced” to post moderation issues in the Moderation Thread ?
Nobody is forced to post in this thread, and the rules do not apply to this thread.
They SHOULD not apply to this thread, because the WHOLE POINT of this thread is to provide a venue in which members can criticise the administration and moderation.
Yes. People already clutter up main threads with all sort of comments that have nothing to do with the OP of the thread. Why should comments about moderation or other “meta-issues” be any different?
Besides, Elizabeth says no one is forced to post “meta-issues” and/or “moderation issues” in the Moderation Issues thread. And there’s no rule requiring it.
I already stated my alternative. Change the rule with regard to “the rules do not apply to this thread.”
And the point of allowing members to criticize other members who are not administrators or moderators is … ?
That’s what Noyau is for.
If this thread is for discussing moderation issues then let’s make it for that, and not just another place where members can hate on each other. This thread needs rules. Currently it has none.
Reciprocating Bill,
Your post entirely misses the point. Its not about whether or not FMM is often sent to moderation, obviously he is polite. it is about the fact that anyone can pretty much say anything they want to him here, and their posts WON”T be sent to moderation. Like Patrick’s ridiculous claim that saying someone is whining is against the rules, and will be sent to guano. But as William immediately showed, that doesn’t happen, and then neither Patrick nor Lizzie responded to the hypocrisy of that.
If Patrick says one thing, and we show clearly that what Patrick is saying is not true, and then the admins ignore the fact that this is a lie, then why should our side trust the admins? Your side is showing that you will lie to us, and you don’t care if we object.
Mine were particularly egregious. Two of the three were probably misinterpreted by the admin. I wasn’t calling keiths or Richardthughes pathetic. But then, since there’s no longer any context, we can’t really tell what the word pathetic was referring to. The third one was quoting Gregory. Lucky I wasn’t banned for posting porn.
My thread suggesting an addition to the rules was shut down, ending any discussion. So from my perspective, I am forced to post here, in this thread, if I don’t want my suggestions about rules changes censored.
So I am effectively, if not literally, forced to post in this thread.
Mung:
Mung’s comments:
And:
But then, since there’s no longer any context, we can’t really tell what the word pathetic was referring to.
That could mean anything.
It’s the first rule of war with those who hold to the quaint notion that the world makes sense.
Glen Davidson
keiths, undisputed master of the out of context quote. He’s pathetic.
Mung: “I wasn’t calling keiths or Richardthughes pathetic.”
Mung: “keiths, undisputed master of the out of context quote. He’s pathetic.”
Well crap. You caught me.
Ugh.
Bring back NewMung.
hotshoe_,
Why don’t you just go back and read the bullshit rationalizations both Patrick and Alan have made regarding allowing them to say whatever they want, and then admonishing theists for doing the same thing. How about Alan’s accusations about a post being scurrilous? Do you think this would be allowed by a theist if this is what they said? The answer is no, it would not, because we have seen similar accusations that the admins have objected to. Its not only about what does get guanoed, its equally about what doesn’t from your side (and you are one of the worst offenders of address the poster, not the post, so you should probably just shut the hell up about saying its not biased.)
You post this ridiculous list of raw numbers about how many posts were moved, without taking into account that 90 percent of the posts here are made by atheists! Have you disregarded even simple math?
The bottom line is it doesn’t matter how the atheists feel about the moderation, that’s great, you like it. What does (at least should if your side was sincere in the slightest) is that ALL of the theists here think the moderation is bad. ALL!
But of course your side is not sincere. Otherwise Lizzie would have addressed Patrick hypocrisy long ago. She wants a mod who supports her sides goal? What goal, to advance skepticism?
So good luck with that King Lizzie. I got news for you, you may think you are the King, but it is our side that provides the content that keeps people coming back here. Without our side, you guys just sit around telling each other how smart you are, and whining about how UD was so mean to you. You are King of an empty barren Wasteland in a ghost town full of drunks in South Dakota without us Lizzie. Give some respect, or don’t expect any in return. No one needs to bow to you here, just because you wanted to make a site to make propaganda against UD.
Anyone who posts on this site is a guest. Guests who aren’t enjoying the party are not forced to stay.
Actually, you provide some of the comedy that makes this site entertaining.
Learn to keep your mouth shut. There seems to be an inverse relationship you haven’t yet caught on to.
Yes. We can say anything we want as long as it’s what you want to hear.
I’m guessing by “egregious” you mean an egregiously-bad move by the admins, rather than an egregiously-bad insult made by you.
Okay, fine, say we agree that two of your comments didn’t “deserve” to be moved. What’s the point of defending just two or three comments? It’s pointless self-justification, unless you’re going to use the same diligence to examine every single comment on that guano page, and compare them to every other comment in the threads they got moved out of. Maybe if you can present it in a way that provides new knowledge to all of us for how to behave better … if so, you’ve got a lot of work cut out for you!
Otherwise, don’t bother to complain about it. I mean, suit yourself if you really think it makes you feel better to complain, but it’s not my experience that fruitless complaining ever made anybody feel better.
Pedant,
You dam right I do. How many people do you think come here to read the robotic bullshit cult rants of Patrick and Richard?
I would ask all rationals to give our ID guests some latitude during their difficult period. Learning your leader has been lying to you all this time whilst making claims about superior morality is a hard thing to come to grips with. Give them time and space to work through it, and forgive any knee jerks they might have.
Well, I don’t think of what I was doing was trying to defend them or complaining that they were sent to Guano, I was trying to be funny. haha.
Meanwhile TSZ becomes more like what it claims to hate every day. Next thing you know they will be closing off comments.
pathetic Richardthughes 🙂
Mung,
I know it’s hard right now Mung, you’ve invested too much to be treated so badly. if it makes you feel better, your complicity only starts from when you knew.
Richardthughes,
Plus it’s Kitzmas tomorrow. That’s always a hard time of year for intelligent design creationists.
Richardthughes,
I love how you keep reminding me to donate to UD. 🙂
Please do, Mung. It won’t last forever, but with your help we can keep life support on a while longer. Your funds go to supporting quality primary scientific research!
Not really.
Give them every penny Mung. It’s hilarious.